Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank my good friend. So here they are told to prove their existence, and yet the State government destroyed the proof of their existence, again aggravating an injustice that had already been visited upon these people. The only people who cared about them were Christian missionaries who allowed them to get some education. But they were denied employment for much of their history in the 20th century in Virginia. We are rectifying this wrong today. And in light of the 400th anniversary of Jamestown, we will bring closure to this national injustice. There is no doubt that these tribes have existed on a continuous basis since before the first Western European settlers set foot in America, and they are here with us today. I know there is great resistance from Congress to grant any American tribe Federal recognition. And I can appreciate how the issue of gambling and its economic and moral dimension influence many Members' perspectives in tribal recognition issues. The Virginia tribes have agreed to forgo gaming. An amendment offered by Congressman Duncan offered last session was approved by the Natural Resources Committee. That is in this bill before us. It prohibits these tribes from gaming under Federal law even if one day the State were to reverse course and set up gambling casinos in the State. The State can have gambling casinos. These Indians cannot. Go figure. But that is the way the legislation reads. The Virginia tribes, under the bill being considered today, could not engage in gambling on their sovereign lands. The Virginia tribes are also prepared to grant Virginia full civil and criminal jurisdiction over any future reservation lands until such time as the Secretary of the Interior and the U.S. Attorney General agree that they have developed an acceptable alternative judicial framework that the Federal Government can honor. Mr. Chairman, these tribes recognize that the legislative route to recognition is a very imperfect process and that compromise is a necessary ingredient. That compromise and that balance have now been struck. Now is the time to pass this legislation. Failure to do so would unravel the progress we have made and lose this time in history for these tribes to finally gain Federal recognition. It would be a setback and an injustice. They have suffered enough injustices. Let's not add another one. Congress has the power to recognize these tribes. It has exercised these powers in the past. It should exercise this power again for these six tribes. More than 300 of the 562 federally recognized tribes have been recognized by an act of Congress. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. We will be doing our part to bring closure to some tragic and unjust acts that have transpired since Englishmen established their first permanent settlement more than 400 years ago in this New World. This is the right thing to do. I trust that Congress will do it today.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. The gentleman makes a legitimate point, and I will withdraw my reservation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the Flat Earth Party is, once again, in a state of denial. Much of the leadership and membership of the Republican Party is denying even the existence of global warming as a tactic to defeat the desperately needed clean green jobs legislation that we are just about to bring to the House floor. Imagine. Forget the fact that more than 2,500 of the most respected scientists from 130 countries have concluded unequivocally that global warming does exist, that it is a very serious problem, and that it is undoubtedly a result of human activity. The accelerated pace of global warming threatens hundreds of millions of people who live near the shoreline from flooding or from drought depending on your location on this planet. In fact, in Juneau, Alaska, they're building an 18-hole golf course on land that just a few years ago was submerged underwater. They're losing more than 30 feet a year from the shoreline. One has to wonder how the party of ``No'' still really feels about the theory that the Earth may revolve around the sun.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Coburn Amendment to the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights that will allow for loaded, concealed weapons to be carried in National Parks, ending a long-standing prohibition against the practice. This amendment is not germane to the underlying bill, makes our parks and historic sites less safe, and increases the opportunity for illegal poaching of protected wildlife. Last year, the Bush Administration tried to push through similar regulations as contained in this amendment, undoing Reagan-era restrictions on the possession of loaded, concealed weapons in National Parks. During the public comment period 140,000 people voiced their opinion, 73 percent of which opposed the new regulations. Despite this public rejection, the Bush administration finalized the regulations. Earlier this year, a U.S. District Court ruled against the implementation of the regulations because the process was ``astoundingly flawed'' and because officials ignored substantial evidence regarding the impact the new regulations would have on the environment. Today, Congress is trying to surreptitiously enact ill-conceived and dangerous policy as an attachment to an entirely separate piece of legislation. Allowing loaded, concealed weapons in National Parks will endanger National Park Service employees, National Park visitors, and wildlife. While the NRA may support this wrong-headed policy change, the amendment is opposed by the Association of National Park Rangers, the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge--Fraternal Order of Police, the National Parks Conservation Association, and the Coalition of Park Service Retirees. Quite simply, those who would be directly impacted by this action believe it is unwise and will endanger the lives of both humans and wildlife. The need for this change, according to proponents, is to allow National Park visitors the ability to protect themselves from potential violence. But National Parks are exceedingly safe places, experiencing much lower rates of crime than in the general public. In fact, National Parks experience 1.6 violent crimes per 100,000 visitors, much lower than the over 170 violent crimes per 100,000 individuals recorded among the general public. The more likely result of this provision is an increase in gun accidents and poaching activity. This amendment will make National Park visitors less safe, not more. Proponents also insist this amendment is about restoring Second Amendment rights to citizens. Yet, even in the Supreme Court's Heller v. D.C. ruling, the Court was clear that the Second Amendment is not absolute and that certain restrictions could be established to protect public safety. I believe prohibiting concealed weapons in National Parks is one such allowable restriction. National Parks are natural cathedrals. They are places where Americans can go to escape their everyday lives and experience the beauty of the natural world. Current regulations requiring weapons to be unloaded or disassembled, regulations first imposed by the Reagan Administration, have served the public interest for the past 25 years. The Coburn amendment is unnecessary, non-germane, and dangerous. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of May as National Women's Health Month. This designation encourages women to make their own health a top priority by obtaining regular medical checkups and preventive screenings. As we urge women to prioritize their own health care, we must also call attention to the disproportionate impact the health care crisis is having on women, particularly women of childbearing age. In fact, earlier this month the Department of Health and Human Services released a new report, titled Roadblocks to Health Care: Why the Current Health Care System Does Not Work for Women which states that women, especially those of reproductive age, are more vulnerable to high health care costs because they require more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly Pap tests, mammograms, and obstetric and gynecological care. While the study sheds much needed light on the impact of the nation's health care crisis on women, its findings are not surprising. Last year, I had the opportunity to visit a women's health clinic run by Planned Parenthood and saw first hand patients seeking the affordable, accessible, high-quality preventive reproductive health care. At Planned Parenthood clinics, health professionals provide over 950,000 cervical cancer screenings and breast exams to more than 850,000 women. Sexually transmitted disease testing and treatment are performed and made available to both women and men. In fact, 97 percent of the services provided at these clinics are preventative. In Virginia alone these clinics provide basic health care, including lifesaving cancer screenings, to over 28,500 patients a year. But these clinics are only meeting a fraction of the need in my state. There are 846,100 women in need of contraceptive services and supplies. Of these, 371,640 women need publicly supported contraceptive services because they have incomes below 250 percent of the federal poverty level (251,710) or are sexually active teenagers (119,930). Eleven percent of women aged 15-44 have incomes below the federal poverty level, and 18 percent of all women in this age-group are uninsured (i.e., do not have private health insurance or Medicaid coverage). Increasing health insurance coverage for women is essential. Approximately 17 million American women have no health insurance coverage. It's critical that health care reform requires coverage of comprehensive reproductive health services. With the economic downturn, these health centers have seen a significant increase in utilization, just as their funding streams, both public and private, have become more precarious. Across the country, they are seeing an increase in patients--women who have lost their jobs and health insurance, or who no longer have money to pay for medical care. These women are literally choosing between a month of birth control and bus fare. Planned Parenthood health centers are part of an important network of women's health care providers and serve as a critical entry point into the health care system for millions of women. In fact, Guttmacher reports more than six in ten clients consider family planning centers their main source of health care. Oftentimes, it is their first interaction with the country's health care system. This is why increasing health insurance coverage is not enough. Ensuring access to a strong network of health care providers is fundamental to improving health care coordination and quality outcomes. A strong women's health care infrastructure must be developed as we proceed with health care reform. Women need preventative services for reproductive and general health. Planned Parenthood clinics are providing these services now and we should make sure they continue to do so.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce, along with Representative Mary Bono Mack, the Truth in Fur Labeling Act of 2009, which would require the labeling of all garments containing animal fur. Current law contains a glaring loophole that allows garments containing less than $150 dollars in fur to be sold in the U.S. without an identifying label. The result is that consumers lack the information they need to make informed choices and may inadvertently purchase garments that contain real fur, possibly from a dog or cat. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) strongly supports this bill as a way to guarantee consumers full and accurate information and to cut down on the amount of illegal dog and cat fur making its way into the U.S. In recent years, HSUS investigators found a proliferation of falsely labeled and falsely advertised dog fur on fashion clothing sold by some of the largest names in U.S. retailing. Of the fur-trimmed jackets subjected to mass spectrometry testing by HSUS, 96 percent were found to be domestic dog, wolf or raccoon dog, and either mislabeled or not labeled at all. Half of all fur garments entering the United States come from China, where large numbers of domestic dogs and cats as well as raccoon dogs are killed every year for their fur by brutal methods, sometimes skinned alive. The Dog and Cat Protection Act of 2000 banned the trade in dog and cat fur after an HSUS investigation revealed the death toll at 2 million animals a year and found domestic dog fur for sale in the United States. While it is currently illegal to import, export, sell or advertise any domestic dog or cat fur in the United States and fur from other animals must be identified with a label, a loophole exists that allows a sizable portion of fur garments to avoid this labeling requirement. The Fur Products Labeling Act of 1951 exempts garments with a ``relatively small quantity or value'' of fur from requiring labels disclosing the name of the species, the manufacturer, the country of origin and other pertinent information for consumers. The Federal Trade Commission defines that value today as $150--an amount that allows multiple animal pelts on a garment without a label. Regardless of value, consumers have the right to know if a product they purchase contains real fur. Consumers who may have allergies to fur, ethical objections to fur, or concern about the use of certain species, cannot make informed purchasing choices. Furthermore, the ability for consumers to make well-informed decisions based on complete information is a cornerstone of a functioning market economy. Importantly, labeling fur trim will not be economically burdensome for apparel manufacturers or retailers. According to the Federal Trade Commission, the total number of fur garments, fur-trimmed garments, and fur accessories sold in the United States is estimated at 3,500,000. Of that, approximately 3,000,000 items--or 86 percent--are already required to abide by labeling requirements. It will not present a difficulty to label the additional 14 percent of products using animal fur. In fact, this legislation may actually increase the efficiency of the manufacturing process because it removes the need to determine an item's value for labeling purposes. Consumer protection officials and leaders in the retail and fashion industries support fur labeling. Legislation closing the loophole in the Fur Products Labeling Act has been endorsed by Tommy Hilfiger, Burlington Coat Factory, Loehmann's, Buffalo Exchange, House of Dereon, Jay McCarroll, Andrew Marc, and others. Leading designers and businesses understand the need for clear labeling laws to protect consumer confidence in their products. Additionally, the National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators (NACAA), an organization representing more than 160 government agencies and 50 corporate consumer offices, recently passed a resolution in support of truthful fur labeling and advertising, including the elimination of loopholes. It is clear that current regulations undercut consumers' ability to make informed purchases and contributes to the continued presence of dog and cat fur in garments sold in the U.S. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the committee of jurisdiction to bring attention to this issue and enact the needed reforms included in the Truth in Fur Labeling Act of 2009.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. The fact is that Guantanamo is not the punitive place that it used to be, but it does not serve our purposes to keep it open. We have courts of justice. If people have committed harm against the United States, they need to be prosecuted. They need to be punished. It's not going to work if we try to do that at Guantanamo. And those who we don't have evidence against are going to have to eventually be released. Now, you know this really is about seizing and holding the moral high ground. And it is about who we are as Americans. That is the only way we win this war against violent extremism.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. We are in agreement on three things that we want to accomplish: We want to win the war against violent extremism, we want to punish those people who are responsible for harming or intending to harm Americans, and we want to make all Americans as safe and secure as possible. Now, we are engaged in a long war. It is a war against violent extremism, but it will continue forever unless we understand the elements that the enemy is using against us because it's not a war that will lend itself to any military victory. In fact, our most effective weapon is to simply be true to the values and principles that define who we are as a Nation. And the most lethal weapon that the enemy has in its possession is to point out those instances where we have not been true to our values and principles, where we have been hypocritical, where we have yielded to fear of the unknown, where we have appealed to the most basic instincts. We are a better nation than that. That's why Guantanamo is important, because there are a limitless number of young impressionable men who, in fact, will be recruited by the enemy for generations to come if we don't stand up and show that we are true to our principles. Initially in the first few years of the Afghan war, 772 people were rounded up, very few by American forces. They were turned over by tribal chieftains for bounties, $5,000, sometimes less. We took them and put them in Guantanamo because we didn't know what to do with them. We interrogated virtually all of them to see what they might know, whether or not we knew that they had been involved in any hostile action against the United States. And, in fact, 85 percent of them we know were not involved in any hostile action against the United States. Now we are faced with a decision. Do we move forward with a policy that is obviously causing us to lose ground in this war against violent extremism? Or do we change course? And what we are urging--not in this bill because this bill simply requires us to put together a plan.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee has come under some harsh criticism for suggesting the money we make available to Afghanistan and Pakistan be conditioned. Chairman Obey is right. When you consider the fact that we have put $33 billion into Afghanistan and $12 billion into Pakistan without conditions, you have to ask ``What has it gotten us?'' We seem to be losing the war in Afghanistan because the leadership of the enemy has a haven in Pakistan. Of all the money we have given to the military in Pakistan, they have 450,000 trained, equipped troops on the southern border with our ally India and one brigade on the north where we need them. Former members of the ISI affiliated with the Pak army located just south of Lahore, Pakistan trained and executed a massacre of 152 people in Mumbai, India. They just released an extremist cleric that is arguing for sharia law across the land. They have just allowed the Swat Valley to be taken over by the Taliban. Of course we need our money conditioned. If they want American taxpayers' money, they need to start serving America's interests.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support of the United States Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO's) National Trademark Expo. In a time of great challenges for the American and global economy, I want to join the USPTO in its efforts to recognize the vital role trademarks play in the economy. The 2008 National Trademark Expo was a great success and was attended by more than 7,000 from the trademark community as well as the public at large. This year's 2-day event will be held on Friday, May 8th, from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., and Saturday, May 9th, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia. The purpose of the Expo is to educate the public about the value and important role trademarks play in our society and the global marketplace. Trademarks are words, names, symbols, sounds, or colors that identify and distinguish the goods and services of one party from those of others. The Trademark Expo will highlight the different types of trademarks including trademarks that identify shapes and configurations of products, century-old registered trademarks, the historical evolution and transformation of trademarks, and the history of people behind certain trademarks. The USPTO campus will turn into a ``Trademark Theme Park'' featuring company booths, themed displays, costumed characters, and inflatables. Additions to this year's Trademark Expo include guided tours, activities for children, and educational lectures on anti- counterfeiting, how to file a trademark, and ``Trademarks 101.'' A large cast of costumed characters masquerading to tunes played by the United States Air Force Band's brass quintet promise a festive introduction for speakers at this year's opening ceremony. During the Trademark Expo, costumed trademarked characters that the public has come to associate with particular goods and services, including the Pillsbury Doughboy, Sprout, Hershey's Kisses, Maisy, Curious George, Peter Rabbit, Energizer Bunny, Mr. Jelly Belly, and The Grinch, among others, will parade about the USPTO campus, and large inflatable characters, including The Cat in the Hat, Thomas the engine from Thomas & Friends, and Green Giant, will decorate the grounds. Costumed characters in the shape of crayons from Crayola, displayed in a spectrum of colors, will escort children through the educational activities including a story time featuring literary trademarked characters sponsored by Hooray for Books!, a local children's bookstore. The Hershey's Kissmobile and a UPS truck will help tell the story of the prevalence of trademarks in our daily lives and their value as source indicators. On average, people are exposed to 1,500 trademarks each day and more than 30,000 if they make a trip to the grocery store. In a time of globalization, counterfeit goods pose an increasing threat to American businesses, and trademarks assist the public in discerning between authentic and counterfeit merchandise. Some of America's leading large corporations, small businesses with unfolding success stories, governmental agencies, and non-profit corporations will highlight the various types of trademarks and the benefits of Federal trademark registration. The exhibitors include Bridgestone Corporation, Burberry Limited, Callaway Golf Company, CMG Worldwide, Inc., Fred Gretsch Enterprises/The Bigsby Company, Galaxy Systems, Inc., International Trademark Association (INTA), Internet Keep Safe Coalition, The Hershey Company/Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery Corporation, The Pepsom Group, Inc., The Travelers Companies, Inc., United Parcel Service of America, Inc., Urangatang Web Design, LLC, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Department of Energy. The Trademark Expo will emphasize the essential role the USPTO plays in reviewing applications for trademarks and issuing federal trademark registrations. An award-winning leader in handling electronic filings, the USPTO will also showcase its electronic trademark application system. During these uncertain economic times, I applaud the USPTO for its continued efforts to educate the public on the role of trademarks through the National Trademark Expo. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the USPTO, at this time when trademark protection and intellectual property rights play an increasingly important role in our global economy.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I can't imagine that we would be opposing fair business practices that all of us would want for our children, for our parents, for our friends. None of these are unreasonable. They should have been done years ago. I hope, for example, we will even add to them by letting people know if they only pay the minimum monthly payment when they will ever be able to pay off their credit card debt. Stop sending all these credit cards to young people on college campuses. Thirty-six credit cards the average American family is getting. It's out of control. It's time to put it under control. Let's pass this unanimously.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Well, it looks like another party-line vote, another partisan exercise. My friend from Texas leading the opposition says that free enterprise works best when we leave it alone. Really? We have tried that approach for the last 8 years, cutting taxes and deregulating businesses. And where has it led us? To the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Trillions of dollars lost to this economy, millions of jobs, and our largest debt holder is Communist China. They're the only ones that came out whole from your experiment. Now, it's true that we've had some of the largest corporate profit in history over the last 8 years, but much of it came from moving money around, in some cases deluding homebuyers and squeezing credit cardholders. And, in fact, 94 percent of the income growth went to the top 10 percent, leaving about 6 percent of income growth for the bottom 90 percent. And so what did they do? They borrowed more and more from their home equity values, and they borrowed more and more from their credit cards. And now what we're doing is to step over on to the side of the consumer and the homeowner. And that's why we have had any number of pieces of legislation to protect homebuyers so they could stay in their home, make their mortgage payments. And now we're dealing with credit cardholders. And we're not being unfair. All this is imposing fair business practices, looking out for the consumer, because the fact is that they have been subject to very unfair practices, arbitrary interest rate increases, over-the-limit fees. Cardholders who pay on time are hit with unfair penalties, due-date gimmicks, any number of things that this legislation addresses, appropriately.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of Representative Price's amendment to H.R. 627. This is an issue on which I have worked for a number of years, so I am honored to be able to join my friend and colleague, and to urge adoption of this critical consumer protection amendment. This provision is a valuable disclosure amendment which would call for card issuers to provide three very important pieces of information to cardholders at least once per calendar quarter on their billing statements. First, the statement would report how long it would take the cardholder to pay off the entire balance if only the minimum monthly payment is paid. Second, the statement would report the total cost to the consumer of only making the required minimum payments, with a breakdown of the resulting principal and interest shares of the total cost. Third, the statement would report the estimated monthly payments required for the consumer to pay off the entire balance in a period of 12, 24 and 36 months. This is important for the more than 100 million households with revolving loan credit of nearly $1 trillion according to the Federal Reserve, who have average credit card debt of $7,430--particularly middle- and low-income families, who are carrying record amounts of debt--both in absolute value and as a share of their total income--and who often don't realize they are digging themselves further into debt as they make their minimum monthly payments. With the average credit card debt per card-holding household carrying a balance of $17,103, some 49.7 million do not pay their balance in full every month. We need to make sure there is simple and clear information for these families. In 2007 alone, there were 5.2 billion credit card solicitations mailed, a average of 36 per household. Just plain truth in disclosure warrants this important change to ensure that any family fully understands what is at stake. I stand in support of both H.R. 627 and this amendment to it, which will require the disclosure of information to consumers that will help them to make more informed choices and to better plan their finances and thus their futures.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, under Chairman Spratt's leadership, the Congress is poised to pass a budget resolution. But unfortunately it's likely to be a party-line vote. The Republicans are asking us to trust them, they have a better way. The only sane response to that is, You gotta be kidding. You had 8 years to manage this country's budget and you blew it. In fact, you took a $5.6 trillion projected surplus and turned it into $5.8 trillion of deficits. It's the worst fiscal management over a Presidential administration in American history. And now they want us to trust them? In fact, we have stayed afloat by borrowing. And now our biggest debtor is the Communist Chinese dictatorship. They own more American debt than anyone else. We have had more Americans unemployed, more Americans in poverty, and more Americans without health insurance. This budget needs to pass for the sake of the American people. We need to look back and realize who the American people can trust to be fiscally responsible.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This bill will extend federal hate crimes law to protect individuals targeted because of their sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Since the federal government began collecting data in 1991, over 100,000 hate crimes have been reported by state and local officials; but, most analysts believe this data significantly underreports the actual number of hate crimes. During this time period, approximately 16% of hate crimes were perpetrated because of a person's sexual orientation. With 1,265 reported incidents in 2007, sexual orientation is the third most common target of hate-based violence, trailing only race and religion. This bill is a logical improvement to existing federal law and is needed to ensure that the federal government has the jurisdiction to assist in all cases of hate-based violence. In addition to expanding the categories of hate crimes, this legislation would allow the Justice Department to aid the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes at the local level through technical assistance and supplemental funding. The cost of investigating and prosecuting these often high-profile cases can be prohibitive for a local community, forcing them to spend precious resources on one case. In these instances, it is essential for the federal government to be able to provide assistance to ensure that justice is served without unduly burdening local resources. Finally, this bill would require the Justice Department to expand its tracking of hate crimes to include crimes based on gender or gender identity. The federal government currently collects data on hate crimes committed due to sexual orientation and disability, but not for gender or gender identity. This expanded resource will provide law enforcement officials the information they need to more accurately gauge the prevalence of hate crimes and to evaluate efforts to combat this violence. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act is an overdue step towards addressing all forms of hate-based violence that traumatize communities across the country. Hate crimes have a chilling effect beyond a particular victim, spreading fear of future attacks among the targeted group. Congress cannot prevent hate from motivating individuals to commit violence, but we can ensure that the proper laws and resources are available to prosecute these cases to the fullest extent of the law. That is what this bill does, and I ask all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I rise to thank and praise Mitch King for his exemplary 36 years of public service--a career which has spanned 11 Postmaster Generals and during which mail service has expanded to serve more than 149 million addresses every day, becoming the country's largest retail network. Mitch is the epitome of a true public servant: he was and is always professional, always ready to help with any issue, and always on the lookout for constructive solutions. It has been an honor to benefit from his contributions both on the House Appropriations Committee and in my District over the years, and it is only right that we should honor and salute him for his more than three decades of service. Mr. King is one of several Managers in the Government Relations Department at the U.S. Postal Service Headquarters in Washington, DC, responsible for Congressional Liaison and legislative activities. He will retire from the Postal Service on May 1, after 36 years of service. During the later part of his career, he managed Postal Service Congressional Liaison activities for the states of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and the District of Columbia. He was also responsible for postal-related legislative activity within the House Appropriations Committee. Additionally, one of his ad hoc activities included service on the Elections Center-sponsored Election Mail Task Force. Mitch began his postal career in 1973 as a letter carrier in my District in Falls Church. Subsequently, he became a supervisor of letter carriers, before becoming an Instructor in the Delivery Service Branch of the Postal Service Management Academy in Potomac, Maryland. By the spring of 1982, he began working in the Government Relations Department at the U.S. Postal Service Headquarters in Washington, DC. In 1992, he was promoted to the position of Government Relations Manager; a Postal Career Executive position. Since then he has managed government relations activities with many Members of Congress, addressing an ever expanding variety of postal- related issues. He has also served as the principal postal contact for the House Appropriations Committee and the Financial Services Appropriations Subcommittee. While the Postal Service receives only minimal funding to support free mail for the blind and overseas voters, Mitch has been an extraordinary resource to us in addressing a host of postal issues which have arisen in our committee. Mitch and his wife, Mickey Fenyk-King, recently celebrated their 35th anniversary. Now, they look forward to having more time to spend with family and friends and to exploring the world together. They have surely earned our thanks and congratulations for a job well done and our very best wishes for their journeys ahead.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Public Service Academy Act of 2009, which will create the first stand alone university dedicated solely to producing highly qualified and well-trained civilian public servants. The new century has brought immense challenges that require strong and prepared, competent and committed public servants. On the eve of the retirement of the baby-boom generation, our nation presses for a new generation of teachers, firefighters, and federal employees to fill the potential void these retirees will leave. Our civil servants will have to address the need to finance entitlement costs in an age of trillion dollar deficits; the need to educate and train a workforce that can compete and prosper in a global economy; the need to provide quality affordable healthcare; the need to protect and preserve the planet's fragile environment; the need to negotiate and reconcile differences with foreign nations; and the need to deter terrorism and keep our nation safe and secure. All of these challenges will require a professional public workforce, and yet because of shifting demographics our civil service faces a wave of retirement over the next decade that threatens the effective operation of government. For these reasons, it is critically important that Congress provide young Americans with the best education and training that will allow them to become our nation's future leaders. Young Americans are ready to answer the call. According to the Higher Education Research Institute, approximately 70 percent of the 2007 freshman class expressed a desire to serve others. Applications to programs like Teach for America and City Year along with religious missions involving young Americans have greatly increased. A 2008 poll conducted by Social Sphere Strategies found that 88% of 18-29-year-olds supported the Public Service Academy, with 57% saying that they ``likely'' would have considered applying to the Academy had it been available when they were applying to college. College presidents, news publications and some of the leading voices in public service--both Democrat and Republican-- have endorsed the creation of the Academy. Now is the time to tap into American's renewed sense of civic obligation and offer an avenue to serve others. Yet, the cost of pursuing public service opportunities after graduation is often prohibitive because college tuition has increased dramatically in the past decade--47 percent at private schools and 63 percent at public schools. As a result of these soaring tuitions, the average college graduate owes about $20,000, an increase of more than 50 percent in the past decade. These potential public servants often overburdened by the debts of college and university loans, are forced to choose more lucrative private sector jobs over public service opportunities. Modeled after the military service academies, the Public Service Academy will provide a four-year, federally-assisted college education for more than 5,000 students a year in exchange for a five-year commitment to public service in areas such as education, public health, law enforcement, and local, state and the federal government. With its mission critical to the health of our public service, the Academy will strive to recruit the top students and faculty from around the United States, require intensive courses in leadership and public service, and eventually help place students in positions throughout the public sphere. Moreover, by providing students with a federally-funded education, the stress of debt would be eliminated, and their commitment to the public service sector for at least five years could lead to lifelong service. Madam Speaker, last year, over 120 bipartisan cosponsors in the House of Representatives joined in the effort to create the Public Service Academy. I am encouraged by the early support of over 25 cosponsors in just a few weeks of circulating this year's proposal. The time to create a United States Public Service Academy is now. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the committees of jurisdiction to bring attention to this issue and make the Public Service Academy a reality.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Plastic Bag Reduction Act,'' legislation that will protect our watersheds, and ultimately the marine environment, by reducing a major source of coastal and marine debris, single-use packaging. Trash in our watersheds interferes with public use and enjoyment of natural resources, can be hazardous to wildlife, and can break down into tiny ``microplastics'' that enter the food chain, carrying toxins with them. Trash is a serious problem in the Potomac and Anacostia River watersheds, where every year cleanup efforts retrieve tons of plastic bags and beverage containers. Much of the trash that reaches major watersheds does not stay in the watersheds--it is washed out to sea and becomes marine debris. Scientists are becoming alarmed about massive ``garbage patches'' that are building up in nearly all of the world's oceans. The best-known patch consists of an estimated 100 million tons of plastic debris that has accumulated inside a circular vortex of currents known as the North Pacific gyre. It is estimated to be anywhere from 270,000 square miles to almost 580,000 square miles--between six and thirteen times the size of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Eighty per cent of the plastic in these ocean gyres is believed to come from the land. The debris that chokes our inland watersheds, our coastlines, and the marine environment sickens and kills thousands of animals every year. Over 267 species worldwide have been impacted by plastic bags and other litter through entanglement or ingestion. Scientists are also realizing that the increasing volume of plastic that is slowly decomposing in the world's oceans may present a longterm problem for marine food chains. As plastic items break down, any toxic additives they contain-- including flame retardants, antimicrobials, and plasticizers--may be released into the ocean environment. Not only are the components of the plastics themselves entering the food chain, but so are toxic chemicals that attach to the plastic particles because of plastic's molecular tendency to attract oils. Many of these chemicals may disrupt the endocrine system--the delicately balanced set of hormones and glands that affect virtually every organ and cell. In marine environments, excess estrogen has led to discoveries of male fish and seagulls with female sex organs. The Plastic Bag Reduction Act encourages consumers to choose reusable bags by imposing a 5 cent tax on single-use carryout bags beginning January 1, 2010. On January 1, 2015, the amount of the tax increases to 25 cents per bag. The tax applies to paper as well as to plastic single-use carryout bags. Of each 5 cents charged to the customer, the retail seller may apply for a tax credit of one cent for carrying out a qualified carryout bag recycling program. Of each 5 cents charged to the customer, one cent will be transferred to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Finally, the bill directs the Comptroller General to conduct a study of the effectiveness of the provisions of the legislation and evaluate whether imposing a tax on other products, such as food wrappers and containers, could reduce the use of those products. I am also co-sponsoring Congressman Markey's ``Bottle Recycling Climate Protection Act of 2009.'' This legislation will impose a 5 cent deposit on beverage containers, which will reduce the number of bottles and cans that end up as trash in oceans and inland watersheds. Madam Speaker, human health is directly linked to the health of our watersheds and oceans. Each of us needs to take responsibility for protecting these essential resources. We can do so through the simple step of taking reusable bags with us when we shop. The Trash Free Watersheds Act creates a tax that I hope no American will choose to pay.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge this week as Molecular Imaging Week. During this week, the molecular imaging and therapy community at hospitals, clinics, imaging centers, educational institutions, and corporations around the world, will educate Congress and the public about health policy issues related to molecular imaging and therapy. Annually, more than 20 million men, women, and children need noninvasive molecular/nuclear medicine procedures. These safe, cost- effective procedures include: positron emission tomography (PET) scans to diagnose and monitor treatment of cancer, diagnose neurological disease such as Alzheimer's and stroke, cardiac stress tests to analyze heart function, bone scans for orthopedic injuries and follow-up for breast and prostate cancer patients, and lung scans for blood clots. Patients also undergo procedures to diagnose liver and gall bladder abnormal function and to diagnose and treat hyperthyroidism and thyroid cancer. Molecular imaging and therapy procedures provide safe, painless, and cost-effective techniques to image the body and treat disease. These procedures are crucial in the early diagnosis of cancer, renal disease, cardiac disease, and Alzheimer's. Imaging procedures often identify abnormalities very early in the progress of a disease--long before many medical problems are apparent with other diagnostic tests. The techniques that are used in molecular imaging include radiotracer imaging/nuclear medicine, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), optical imaging, the PET scan, ultrasound and others. Molecular imaging offers unique insights that allow a more targeted approach to evaluation and management of heart disease. It also plays a pivotal role in guiding the management of cancer: diagnosis, staging (extent and location), assessing therapeutic targets, monitoring therapy, and evaluating prognosis; and is playing an increasingly significant role in conditions such as: tumors, dementias (Alzheimer's and other), movement disorders, seizures disorders and psychiatric disorders. Why is molecular imaging important? It is revolutionizing the practice of medicine and is critical to quality health care. Molecular imaging delivers on the promise of ``personalized medicine''--it can provide patient-specific information that allows tailored treatment of disease. It can show a precise (molecular) level of detail that provides new information for diagnosis, for determining which kinds of therapy will and will not work for which patient, and for tracking the results of a specific therapy to see exactly how well it is working. It is also key to the development of pharmaceuticals and genetic therapy. Molecular therapy utilizes targeting molecules that deliver the therapeutic agent directly to the site of interest, bypassing normal tissue that is responsible for the toxic side effects of many current therapies. Based in Reston, Virginia, the Society of Nuclear Medicine (SNM) is an international scientific and professional organization founded in 1954 to promote the science, technology and practical application of nuclear medicine. Its 16,000 members are physicians, technologists and scientists specializing in the research and practice of molecular imaging and nuclear medicine. In 2005, SNM created the Molecular Imaging Center of Excellence, an organizational component within SNM, dedicated to all aspects of molecular imaging in the detection and management of disease. The primary focal areas of the Center are educational programs, professional and intersociety networking, and serving as a resource for development and implementation of SNM policy in this specialized area. I applaud SNM and its members for their efforts to educate others on this major healthcare innovation during Molecular Imaging Week (April 19-25), and I urge my Colleagues to join me in supporting policies that will continue to keep our nation on the cutting edge of molecular imaging research.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, since the mid-1990's the authority to regulate the towing industry had been in limbo. Through a provision slipped into the Federal Aviation Administration Act of 1994 that defined the tow truck industry as an interstate carrier, state and local regulatory authority of tow truck operations has been preempted. One year later, passage of the Interstate Commerce Termination Act struck down the federal regulatory body that oversaw the towing industry. With no federal regulator and confusing restrictions and conflicting court rulings on what states and localities are permitted to regulate, no level of government has been able to adequately regulate the towing industry. This lack of regulatory authority has led to more than a decade of major consumer abuses by some unscrupulous towing companies across the country. These bad actors have continued to taint an otherwise much needed and respectable profession. Complaints about exorbitant towing fees and abusive operators grew so bad that in 2005, Congress agreed, through an amendment to the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act--a Legacy of Users (SAFETEA-LU), to allow some limited state regulation in the area on non-consensual towing. The amendment also directed the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study to identify additional means to protect the rights of individuals whose vehicles are towed. That study offers some recommendations that track with conclusions I made several years ago, that consumers and tow truck operators would be better served by removing the last vestiges of federal preemption. It notes that consumers needing redress for overcharges today or other unfair treatment would: no longer be in the Catch-22 position of having their State case thrown out on preemption grounds only to find that they may have no real recourse at the Federal level either. Since business practices vary from place to place, it may also be more practical to have nonconsensual towing regulated by the States rather than by the Federal Government. States are the more logical place to regulate towing. They already have an established body of law in place to do so. This legislation I am introducing today will bring those laws back into effect. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and, particularly, for three bills that I was proud to sponsor that are included, the FERS Redeposit bill, the Part-Time Compensation, and the Parity For Retirement Systems. I want to mention a word about the parity for retirement systems. At a time when those who are in the Federal Employee Retirement System are seeing their Thrift Savings Plans tank by 30, sometimes 40 percent, it's particularly important that they be fully compensated for unused sick leave. The reality is that, in the earlier retirement system, the so-called CSRS system, Federal employees are fully compensated for all unused sick leave at the end of their careers. But under the FERS system, if they don't use that sick leave, they lose it. And so the Government loses $68 million in productivity from those employees who take their sick leave at the very end of their careers. That's not an intelligent plan, and the fact is that this bill corrects that disparity. The entire bill should be passed, and I hope we'll have bipartisan support for it. And I thank Mr. Lynch for his leadership on behalf of Federal employees.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I was not intending to speak, but it does seem to me there should be some historical accuracy within the Congressional Record. And while the gentlelady from North Carolina is certainly entitled to her own set of opinions, she is not entitled to her own set of facts. So let me review some of the facts in terms of the economic history she purported to describe. I agree that we did have a substantial fiscal crisis in the 1980s, but it was the Bush administration that has told us that today we are faced with the most severe fiscal crisis since the Great Depression. Now in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan was elected on a platform that any President who submitted an unbalanced budget should be impeached. Well, not only did he never balance any budget that he submitted, he tripled the national debt. Every single budget was unbalanced. President Bush, the 41st President--referred to as Papa Bush or whatever; it's important to distinguish between the two--in 1990, realizing how bad the Republicans' supply-side gimmickry had failed, what damage it had done to the economy, he brought the Democratic leaders and the Republicans together and came up with a fiscal plan. That plan put together by the 41st President, formed the foundation of fiscal responsibility for the next decade. It was called PAYGO. And it worked. Basically, you don't cut taxes unless you cut spending and vice versa. You don't increase spending unless you raise that same amount of revenues. So we implemented that, and then President Clinton came in, passed a balanced budget, adopted that President Bush the 41st PAYGO concept, and, in fact, balanced the budget. That produced surpluses. And, in fact, at the end of the Clinton administration, he handed over $5.6 trillion of projected surplus based upon this concept of fiscal responsibility. President Bush took it--this is the 43rd President now--takes that $5.6 trillion and immediately started squandering it by negating the concept of PAYGO. One of the first things that was done by the immediate past-Bush administration was to say, ``We are no longer going to be bound by PAYGO concepts. We'll cut taxes and we'll increase spending.'' They started a war of choice that cost us $1 trillion--not one dime was ever paid for--and then passed two tax cuts which have cost trillions of dollars, $3.5 trillion. Not one dime was ever cut to pay for that, either.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. So here we are now with the largest deficit we have ever faced, a deficit that is greater than the deficit created by all the previous Presidents in American history, and basically it was because we had a Congress of the same party as the White House who got all the spending programs they wanted, primarily in the defense area, and cut all the taxes they chose. Now, of course, the money was not well distributed, and that's one of the problems. It went to the wealthiest people in the country. In fact, one of our problems is that more than 90 percent of the income growth that has occurred over the last 8 years went to the top 10 percent. 90 percent of this country's wealth is now controlled by 1 percent of our population. And that's one of the reasons why the bottom 90 percent had to borrow from their assets, their equities, their homes which created this bubble. But the point is, there was a lack of fiscal responsibility, and that is what is plaguing us today. This President is trying to reinvest in the American people, ultimately balance the budget and put us back on the course that President Clinton set us on and that Democrats want to put us back on.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, a couple of recent Washington Post headlines deserve mentioning on the House floor. The first was on March 16, where the Red Cross Confirmed that the United States Violated International Laws Against Torture. Last Sunday's article points out that that torture policy applied to an individual by the name of Abu Zubaida sent our government officials on any number of false leads. It produced no reliable information. It turns out that that suspect, Abu Zubaida, wasn't even an official member of al Qaeda. He told our professional interrogators what he knew to be true, until--under pressure from the Cheney White House to torture him--he sent our government on any number of false leads. As usual, people being tortured tell you what they know that you want to hear in order to stop the torture. The point for the Congress to act on is that if we are ever going to prevail in our struggle against violent extremism, we need to stand up for America's defining principles of equal justice under the law. We have to hold those people accountable who pressured and enabled American government officials to perform actions that were counterproductive to our national security, that were illegal, and were immoral, and thus were anti-American. Only through such judicial accountability can we regain the moral high ground and once again lead the world by practicing what our founders preached.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Michael F. Jaggard, Captain, USN (RET), who is retiring after more than 41 years of faithful service to our Nation, as both a military officer and career civilian employee. He has offered selfless dedication to which we are all grateful. In 1967, Mr. Jaggard began his federal career in the United States Army as an Infantryman, serving with the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment in the Republic of Vietnam from January 1968 to January 1969. Upon his release from active duty, Mr. Jaggard returned to civilian life and earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Texas A&I University in 1971. Mr. Jaggard continued his government service by enlisting in the United States Navy in 1973. Upon graduating from Officer Candidate School and until 1977, he served as the Supply Officer aboard the USS Will Rogers (SSBN 659). He subsequently worked as an instructor at the Navy Supply Corps School in Athens, Georgia, and in 1979 he served as Assistant Supply Officer aboard the USS Emory S. Land. Upon completion of that tour in 1981, he attended the Navy Postgraduate School where he earned a Masters of Science in Management degree. After graduate school, Mr. Jaggard became a Principal Contracting Officer at the Naval Sea Systems Command for four years. From 1986 through 2001, he continued his federal career completing many successful tours in the Navy, assuming various leadership roles that have taken him across the world. He served as the Executive Officer and Commanding Officer of the Naval Regional Contracting Center, Philadelphia; Submarine Supply Support Officer to the Commander Submarine Force, US; Supply Officer aboard the USS Orion home ported in La Maddalena, Italy; Commander, Defense Contract Management Command, United Kingdom; and Deputy Commander for Contracts at the Naval Sea Systems Command. On October 1, 2001, Mr. Jaggard retired from the Navy as a Captain. Upon retirement he was appointed to the Senior Executive Service in the civilian ranks and served as the Chief of Staff/Policy to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Acquisition & Logistics Management in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition. He has been taking on the challenges of military acquisition and procurement ever since. It is through the commitment and sacrifice of Americans like Mr. Mike Jaggard that our nation is able to continue upon the path of democracy and strive for the betterment of mankind. I am proud, Madam Speaker, as a fellow Virginian, to thank him and his family for his long and honorable service to our nation. On behalf of the citizens of Virginia's Eighth Congressional District, I wish him fair winds and following seas as he concludes a distinguished career.