Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for his extraordinary leadership and his very deep and genuine concern over the fiscal policy direction of this country. Even beyond the immorality of this wild, profligate spending and then sending the bill to our children to pay, what American family would take a credit card, max it out, and then tell the credit card company, Do not worry about it. Send the bill to my kids after I die. And that is what is going to happen. The amount of debt and even the interest on that debt is going to cripple generations to come.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the United Service Organizations, whose world headquarters are located in my district and this year will celebrate its 65th anniversary of serving the men and women of our armed forces. At the direction of President Franklin D. Roosevelt the USO was formed in 1941 as a means of promoting troop morale by providing entertainment, recreation and support. Relying solely on charitable contributions and the generosity of individuals, the USO has served troops in each American conflict since World War II. Perhaps at its most well known during World War II, the USO provided over 400,000 shows and performances to our armed forces, sending 7,000 performers overseas and performing as many as 700 shows in a single day. It was during this time that the great Bob Hope first performed for our soldiers. His famous USO career spanned six decades, headlining over 60 tours and delivering countless one-liners. In 1997, the USO successfully worked with Congress to designate Bob Hope the first honorary veteran of the U.S. armed forces. Today the USO is still going strong. In 2005, the USO sponsored over 50 celebrity entertainment tours, visiting nearly 200,000 service members in over 30 countries. The volunteer base has grown to over 12,000 people who donate over 450,000 hours of service each year. The USO, however, provides more than just uplifting entertainment to our troops. Over 750,000 handmade care packages were sent to service members deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan last year. Additionally, the USO has made communication to the home front more affordable and accessible through the Operation Phone Home which distributed over one million prepaid phone cards to deployed troops. All of this would not be possible were it not for the dedication of the USO staff and volunteers who so graciously give their time and energy to help those who are defending our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in commending the USO and its members for all of their work and in congratulating them on 65 years of dedicated services to our troops.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to commend the Arlington County Civic Federation on the occasion of its 90th anniversary celebration. Born from a handful of concerned citizens' groups devoted to creating better schools and roads, the Arlington Civic Federation has grown to over 80 organizations as the oldest and longest standing voice in the county devoted to improving residents' lives. As the boundaries of new civic organizations that comprise the Federation have changed over the years, so too have the boundaries of issues, ideas, and actions the Federation has endorsed and successfully championed for its citizenry. The Federation has battled for Arlington's citizens on issues ranging from school desegregation, affordable housing, operation of the airport authority, HIV/AIDS, Metro and interstate highways, as well as football and baseball stadiums. Standing up for the ordinary citizen with a non- political, nonpartisan, non-sectarian voice, the Federation continues to improve the quality of life for Arlingtonians and shape public policy from the local to Federal level. Patrick A. Smaldore Jr., a lifelong Arlington County resident, career civil servant and Naval reservist, now serves the Federation as President. He is joined by the leadership of Vice President--Jackie Snelling, Treasurer--Frances Finta, Secretary--Burt Bostwick, Chairman of the Executive Committee--Larry Mayer, Vice Chairman of the Executive Committee--Stan Karson and members Eileen Williams, Beth Offenbacker, and Frank Emerson. Their work, along with the 14 standing committees is responsible for engaging new issues as they arise. With the Commonwealth's coming 400th anniversary, we are reminded of how intimate a role Arlington has played in the shaping of our Nation's history. George Washington, James Madison and George Mason all worked or owned land in the county. As the voice of its people, the Federation also reminds us of the innovation and leadership that will continue to contribute to our future. Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in honoring the 90th anniversary of the Arlington County Civic Federation for its many contributions to public affairs and its ongoing commitment to the people of Arlington County.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the budget the President unveiled this week takes from the poor, gives to the rich, and leaves all of us in a worse fiscal mess. At a time of war, when our soldiers are risking their lives halfway across the world, where is the call for shared sacrifice? Do millionaires deserve $50 billion in tax cuts, paid for by reducing services for the lowest-income families? Can we afford to extend tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent when our fiscal obligations include spending over $1 billion a week in Iraq, the rebuilding of the gulf coast, and protecting the homeland from terrorist threats? Instead of responsibly budgeting for these costs, we are in a fiscal free-fall, giving breaks to those who need it the least while slapping away the hands of those who need help the most. This administration is the most fiscally irresponsible in U.S. history, responsible for the four largest annual deficits ever. We have gone from a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion in 2001 to a projected deficit of $3.3 trillion, a reversal of $9 trillion. Mr. Speaker, this budget lacks compassion, is fiscally irresponsible, and does not reflect the priorities of this great Nation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of America's working families and in opposition to the spending cuts included in the budget reconciliation conference agreement. While I am committed to restoring fiscal discipline to the House, cuts to essential social services that aid the most vulnerable in our society are not the appropriate way to achieve this goal. Indeed, none of the savings from the cuts included in this legislation will be used to pay down the deficit, but rather to help finance reconciliation tax cuts for the wealthiest in our society. Under this bill, $39 billion over 5 years will be cut from social services programs that aid families in need. These spending cuts will negatively impact an estimated 58 million Americans who currently participate in Medicaid, student loans, child support, and Medicare. The package includes $28 billion in cuts to Medicaid over 10 years, 75 percent of which affect provisions that will increase the number of the uninsured and under-insured by raising co-payments and premiums, cutting benefits, and tightening access to long-term care. The misplaced priorities inherent in this bill will force the neediest in our society to pay more for health care, increasing the growing ranks of the uninsured in America. In addition to facing higher costs, Medicaid recipients will also be required to submit a passport or birth certificate to maintain or gain eligibility. This provision may prove to be a barrier for vulnerable families who participate in the Medicaid program. It will certainly result in fewer adults and children accessing Medicaid services or having to unnecessarily delay access to critical doctor visits or hospital stays. By cutting $12 billion in student aid programs, this bill will make it more difficult for students to afford a college education. It will raise the cost of college for students and their families through increased interest rates and loan fees. This bill will be the largest student aid cut ever and shows a lack of commitment by the majority party for the education of our next generation. Families and children who rely on child support payments and other safety net programs will also be hurt by this legislation; $2.6 billion will be cut from child support enforcement, foster care programs, and Supplemental Security Income. Regrettably, the reduction in child support enforcement funds will result in the loss of billions of dollars in potential child support payments, reducing child support collections by $2.9 billion over 5 years and $8.4 billion over 10 years. This is directly taking money out of the hands of single parents struggling to raise their children on their own. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that the shameful cuts offered by the majority hurt our Nation's most vulnerable citizens in a direct effort to provide more tax cuts for wealthy Americans. I, therefore, strongly oppose this legislation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this is wrong. It is indefensible. And the only reason that it is being done is because the majority has the power to do it. There are a great many Members of the majority, I can see them right now, that know that the defense appropriations bill is not the vehicle with which we should be establishing profoundly important environmental policy. Whether or not to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an issue that has been divisive and contentious, that is bound to delay this bill and that has nothing germane to do with this defense appropriations bill. It should not be here. And yet we are going to do it because the majority can get away with it at 2:00 a.m. in the morning. We have been debating this for decades, whether or not to allow our national wildlife refuges to be opened for drilling. Good people of good intention on both sides can make their arguments, but they should be made in the authorizing committee, not at 2:00 a.m. in the morning, not slipped into an appropriations bill when we are sitting in conference at the last minute just because the chairman can do it. He figures he can force Members to have to choose between supporting the troops and protecting the environment. That is a false choice. I do not believe that the policy is right. To save a penny a gallon, we are going to establish this precedent, we are going to drill in what is really the Serengeti of the Arctic meaning that our future generations will not be able to enjoy this wilderness in the same way because we have jeopardized the ecology of this pristine wilderness. Beyond the fact that the policy is wrong is that the process stinks. It is indefensible to be doing this at this time on this bill, forcing Members into this kind of a false choice. This policy of protecting our wildlife refuges has been upheld through four Republican Presidents, three Democratic Presidents. It should. It is a very important environmental priority. The process you are using to change this policy does not show respect for the integrity of this body. That is why this rule should be defeated. This provision should not be part of the defense appropriations bill. It does not belong here. We should not be debating it at 2:00 a.m. in the morning. And just because people can do it, because they have the power to do it does not mean it is right, and it will come back to haunt us.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I had intended to stay out of this debate, but the tone of the debate has made me angry. It never ceases to amaze me how many men will seize any opportunity to kick people when they are down. Illegal immigrants have no legal rights in this country. They have no economic power. They have no political leverage. But, if they did, this bill would not be on the floor today. Sure, we are a Nation of laws, but we are also a Nation of values and ideals, and it is those values and ideals that bond us together as a society and an economy. Every single one of us, and I can say that because there are no Native Americans in this body, every single one of us are the children of immigrants, and whether they were legal or illegal was largely due to the accident of their birth, what country they were born in, what visa and immigration quotas applied and, the economic status of the parents to whom they were born. There is no sector of this economy that works harder for less compensation than undocumented aliens. There is no single group of workers that believe more in the American ideal than the people that we want to isolate and disown and marginalize today. They are here because they were willing to risk everything to forge a better future for their children, and that is what makes America great, because they believe in the American ideal; they believe that if they work hard enough, even though they will not be paid as much compensation as many of the people working beside them, but if they work hard enough, their children will have a better future, and that is why they are here. I do not know any other sector of the American workforce that puts more money aside for the future of their children. That is what America is all about. It is not what this bill is about.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 657 on 12/16/05 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Gonzalez

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. Rather than take a hard look at our immigration system, this legislation uses broad strokes targeting both legal and undocumented immigrants and would make felons of nonprofits working to care for the underserved in our communities. The American public knows that our immigration system is broken. Polls show that two-thirds of the country believes that our system needs to be fixed. But instead of working to assemble a comprehensive package to fix our Nation's immigration system, we are being given this bill that has no chance of being enacted, that is intent on punishing immigrants, and relies more on rhetoric than real solutions. What we need is a comprehensive approach that deals not just with border security, but with employers and the undocumented immigrants who are supporting our economy by working in jobs Americans refuse to take. This legislation is a punitive, heavy-handed measure that would not in any shape reform immigration, but would only make matters worse. First and foremost, this bill seeks to criminalize both legal and illegal immigrants. Current law holds that undocumented immigrants face civil charges and may be subject to fines and deportation if found to be living here illegally. This legislation would change those civil charges to a criminal felony, ensnaring not only undocumented immigrants but also people who are here legally but have not notified the Government of technical changes in their status, such as an address change. These people, here legally and working hard to support their families in low wage jobs, could face up to a year in prison under the bill's provisions. Many of the working immigrants who are here illegally perform jobs that U.S. citizens simply do not want or will not take. They are mainly in service and agricultural jobs, which are a vital part of our economy. Punishing those people, who contribute greatly to our economy, rather than providing some form of guest worker visa program, is penny wise but pound foolish. We should be in the business of helping them gain a pathway to legal status rather than locking them up. One of the most deleterious provisions of this legislation is the section that would make it a crime for a U.S. citizen to help an undocumented immigrant, even if this is done unknowingly. Under the expanded definition of smuggling, a citizen could be prosecuted for simply driving a neighbor to the grocery store or hospital emergency room. Such a provision risks criminalizing the work of nonprofits and religious organizations, whose sole purpose is to help human beings in need. Many organizations work on behalf of refugees and asylum seekers, helping them navigate their way through the Byzantine immigration process. Because our immigration system is so complicated, it is possible that asylum seekers are in the United States illegally for a short time. Any citizen who helps people who have fled their home country because they feared for their lives could be prosecuted under the wording of this bill. This is totally unacceptable and runs counter to the values that have made our country great. The United States is a beacon for democracy and has always been a refuge for people seeking freedom. From the first settlers who were escaping religious persecution, to Europeans escaping Communist regimes, accepting the huddled masses yearning to be free has been a part of our Nation's genetic code. Mr. Chairman, President Kennedy once stated, ``Everywhere immigrants have enriched and strengthened the fabric of American life.'' This can be seen in all aspects of our society from advances in science and medicine to great works of art and literature. If this legislation is passed, the fabric of our Nation could be permanently altered.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for instructing conferees on the FY2006 Defense Appropriations bill to include the amendment by our colleague in the Senate, John McCain. This provision would simply provide for uniform standards for the interrogation of persons under the detention of the Defense Department and a prohibition on cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment of persons under custody or control of the U.S. Government. Senator McCain knows the ravages of war and devastating effects of inhumane treatment at the hands of an enemy. He and other American soldiers during the Vietnam War were subjected to terrible treatment that no human being ought to endure. In recent floor remarks, Senator McCain explained that during his time in captivity he and his fellow American soldiers drew strength from knowing that the institution to which they belonged, the U.S. military, and the country they served stood for the highest of principles and ideals. They believed that the U.S. would never treat prisoners of war the way that they were being treated. Noone would disagree that ``torture, cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment'' is unjust, but there is clear evidence that it is also ineffective. When put under extreme levels of pain or duress during interrogation, a detainee is more likely to say anything to stop the pain, regardless of its accuracy. Moreover, our own cruel treatment of others legitimizes the torture of American citizens. Look no further than the desecrated bodies of American citizens and soldiers killed in Iraq for tragic evidence of this reaction. Furthermore, torture and inhumane treatment aids in the recruitment of terrorists and fuels further terrorist activity. As members of Congress, we have the Constitutional obligation, under Article I, Section 8, to speak out on this issue and others related to treatment of foreign detainees in war. We also have a moral obligation to oppose cruel and degrading treatment of human beings, and a patriotic obligation to stand up for the honor of this country. In the wake of the scrutiny and embarrassment that our nation has endured following the treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, it is imperative that we proclaim to the rest of the world that this policy reflects the law of the land and the conscience of our country. Providing our soldiers with clear, written guidance on how to treat detainees not only protects their interests but underscores the freedoms and values we cherish as Americans and that we claim to be the reason we have gone to war in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts of the world. Today, as a Congress we must respect and honor our nation, those that risk their lives to serve it, and the high standards and ideals on which it is based. Supporting the McCain amendment is not an issue of political difference; it is an issue of national identity. The McCain amendment is needed to close a loophole in current policy that does not explicitly describe standards for foreigners held under U.S. custody abroad. This amendment reiterates and clarifies our existing policy that prohibits the use of torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment by U.S. soldiers and agents who are detaining and interrogating prisoners in the global war on terror, requiring that they use the techniques sanctioned in the Army Field Manual on Intelligence and Interrogation. I urge my colleagues to resist any efforts to accept a watered down version of Senator McCain's language that would grant exceptions for the CIA to conduct its own investigations of detainees in locations overseas that are independent of the Army Field Manual. Such a move, which apparently is being orchestrated by the Vice President's office, would only defeat the intent of the provision adopted in the Senate and cause further confusion among military and civilian service people charged with detainee interrogations. The Army Field Manual has been used as the standard for interrogation guidance since it was established during the Reagan Administration. The Manual does not cast any technique into stone, but changes with time and includes techniques and descriptions that are classified so as not to be uncovered by enemies. In a sign of broad bipartisan support, the Senate overwhelmingly approved the McCain amendment in a 90 to 9 vote. In addition, 28 retired military leaders, including General Shalikashvili, General Hoar, and General Colin Powell, have supported legislating the use of the Army Field Manual through the McCain amendment. In today's global war on terror, men and women in the armed forces are charged with the critical task of detaining and interrogating prisoners of war and enemy combatants without clear instructions on what is and what is not permissible. These ambiguities contributed to the absence of standards that resulted in the degrading and inhumane treatment that we, and the rest of the world, witnessed at Abu Ghraib and what apparently occurred at Guantanamo at the hands of young and ill-advised soldiers. The abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo stained the honor of our country and our military. I know that most of our constituents want to amend these wrongdoings. In order to do this, and to help protect the treatment of American soldiers who may be held as prisoners of war, we must give our troops clear instructions on acceptable treatment during detainment and interrogation, without equivocation. Let us not shrink from the responsibility that stands before us; let us rise as a united body to defend our principles, uphold our proud traditions and articulate to the world what America stands for. I urge my colleagues to express their support to Chairman Young to retain the McCain amendment, without modification, in the conference agreement to the FY2006 Defense Appropriations bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Utah for yielding me the time, and I will not take much of it, but I would like to underscore what has already been said. We have a very close, almost unique relationship with the people of Korea. Thousands of our young men and women died to enable the South Koreans to live in democracy. They have taken advantage of that opportunity and have been a model for the rest of the world in terms of free enterprise and an active democratic system. Hopefully, the people of North Korea will one day understand that South Korea's gone in the right direction, and North Korea's gone in the wrong direction. In addition to that strong relationship, Korean-Americans have contributed to this country in a way that is paralleled by very few other nationalities. They have contributed in ways to our economy and our society that are incalculable and that are worthy of great appreciation. Their work ethic, their strong values have done so much for the business community and, really, for the stability of our society. Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that one way that we might substantively express our appreciation for what Korean-Americans have done for this country's economy and society is to pass the Visa Waiver bill. I am a sponsor of this, and what it would do is to grant the same kind of opportunities for Koreans to come from South Korea and to visit their relatives as are granted to 27 other countries, including all of our European allies and many of our Asian allies; Bosnia and Japan, for example. Yet today, there are thousands of South Korean families waiting in line, trying to get a visa to visit their own families here in the United States of America. They are not able to because they are not afforded the same visa waiver that our other allies are. In fact, they are really the only strong ally that is not granted that privilege. I think we should grant that privilege, and I think that would be a further expression of the very strong and genuine sentiments that are expressed in this resolution. I obviously strongly support this resolution, and I appreciate the opportunity to say so on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends, the gentleman from Utah, and the gentleman from Illinois for offering it and certainly my good friend and colleague from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to H. Walker Feaster III, Inspector General of the Federal Communications Commission, who retired on January 3, 2006, after 38 years of Federal service--32 of which were served at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Walker attended Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and graduated with a bachelor's degree in Business Administration in 1966. Walker's distinguished career began with service in the U.S. Navy from August 1966 to August 1971. Walker served as Combat Information Center Officer/Intelligence Officer on a guided missile frigate and was deployed to the Middle East on the flagship for the Commander, Middle East Forces. Walker also served as Staff Assistant to the Deputy Commander for Plans, Naval Telecommunications Command. Walker was discharged from active duty with the rank of Lieutenant and ultimately retired from the U.S. Naval Reserve with the rank of Commander in 1992. In October 1971, Walker went back to work for the Naval Telecommunications Service as a civilian employee and in January 1974, after a brief career in the private sector, Walker joined the FCC as a Senior Analyst and later Deputy Chief of the Management Systems Division within the Office of Managing Director. During this period, Walker also found time to earn a Master of Science in Government from Southern Illinois University in 1975 and earn a Master of Business Administration from American University in 1977. In 1978, Walker joined the staff ofthe FCC's Private Radio Bureau first as the Assistant Bureau Chief for Management and later as the Associate Bureau Chief for Operations. In 1981, he rejoined the Office of Managing Director as the Deputy Chief of Management Planning and later became the Associate Managing Director for Program Analysis. Walker was named as the Acting Inspector General of the FCC on November 14, 1994, and, on April 14, 1996, was officially appointed as the Inspector General, the position he held until his retirement. Walker had many accomplishments as the FCC's Inspector General. Directing a staff of 14 professionals, he expanded oversight of Commission operations and improved the objectivity and integrity of audits and investigations. During his tenure, he directed over 167 audits/surveys/special reports of Commission operations and programs making over 600 recommendations or observations and achieving Commission concurrence for over 95 percent of those findings. He also directed over 270 inquiries/investigations of Commission employees and contractors and assisted Federal prosecutors in criminal investigations and prosecutions resulting in plea agreements, criminal fines, civil settlements and restitutions. Walker prepared Semi-Annual Reports to Congress on office activities and testified before House and Senate committees on numerous occasions. Walker and his wife Susan have two children, Nicole and Nicholas. Susan Smith Feaster is the President of Coastal Partners, Ltd., and CEO and Chairman of the Board for the World Leadership Institute. Susan also formerly served on the staffs of United States Senator Paul Trible, Jr. and Congressman Frank R. Wolf. Nicole, a sixth grader who speaks French fluently, is an outstanding student and athlete. She participates in Tai Kwon Do, basketball and softball. Nicholas, a bright little 3 year old, attends preschool in Georgetown, and is busy learning the alphabet and his numbers in French. The Feaster family enjoys attending sporting events together and vacations to destinations in the United States and abroad. Mr. Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending the career of H. Walker Feaster III. With Walker's retirement, the FCC loses an enthusiastic, innovative leader and an exemplary Federal employee.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the President has been touring the country giving speeches to justify his Iraq war policy to a series of controlled audiences. But as the American public nevertheless lends an eager ear, it hears a muddled message. Today it is the economy. But the fact is that in Iraq, the unemployment rate is over 50 percent. Oil, water, electricity is worse than pre-war levels. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has offered an alternative vision, immediate redeployment as soon as practicable, but with a military force over the horizon. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that our bottom line needs to be, what policy is going to enable our once inexhaustible military to regain its strength and to make this country, in fact, more secure? And the reality is that our unjustified invasion and occupation of Iraq has, in fact, destabilized that country and has weakened our military and caused our country to be far less safe from terrorism.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the unspoken inevitability we face is that U.S. troops will eventually leave Iraq. Eighty percent of Iraqis want us to leave now. They now see us as occupiers, not liberators. American politicians say we must save Iraqis from an even more violent civil war. But that civil war is underway because of the American presence. It is fueling Sunni hostility toward Shia collaborators. If the American forces weren't there, Iraqi Shia security forces would no longer be serving the interests of foreign infidels against other fellow Iraqis. It would open the door to the reenlistments of many of the best trained and experienced former Iraqi military and police professionals. The preponderance of power now lies with the Shia and the Kurds. The Sunni fighters have only small arms and make-shift explosive devices. The insurgents don't have access to Saddam's tanks and helicopters. Furthermore, we have equipped the Shia and Kurds with much superior weaponry and they are vastly superior in number. If the Americans end their occupation, the insurgents' resistance will lose its purpose. The foreign jihadi element in Iraq is numerically insignificant. The vast bulk of the resistance has little connection to al-Qaeda or its offshoots. The colonel in charge of cleaning out the insurgency in Tall Afar said they were fighting foreign jihadi fighters coming in from Syria. Yet, when they interrogated the more than a thousand captives, not one--not one was a foreigner--all were native Iraqi insurgents. But al Zarqawi and his followers have benefited mightily from this misguided war because he is being given credit by American politicians for heading the resistance. We, in America, have been his best recruiting aid. But what Zarqawi and al-Qaeda want is wholly different from what the Sunni insurgents want. Zarqawi wants to see a Muslim caliphate and a violent struggle against Christian and Jewish infidels around the world until Judgment Day. The Sunni insurgents want an independent Iraq that will enable them to regain the wealth and power they experienced under Saddam. Foreign fighters will be harshly treated by Iraqis once American troops leave. The jihadists need a failed state to function. That's why they were not in Iraq until we entered Iraq and broke up the effective, albeit horribly repressive government of Saddam Hussein.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this Republican-controlled Congress has run higher annual deficits and accrued more debt than ever before in the history of our Nation. This budgetary irresponsibility is leading us down a dangerous path and must be stopped. After the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and with the continuing costs of our ill-advised war in Iraq, restoring fiscal discipline has taken on added urgency. Our responsibility today is to decide how to begin to allocate the burden of restoring financial order. Our choice is straightforward: we can place the burden on those least able to bear it by cutting financial assistance to the poor and social services programs to the needy, or we can place it on those far more able to bear it by deferring the billions in tax cuts which were enacted just two years ago, some provisions of which have yet to take effect. How we exercise this responsibility will reflect our philosophy on government, our faithfulness to the concept of a caring community, and the values of compassion and fairness we hold most important. The Federal Government should not retreat from its role of caring for those Americans who are most in need and of enabling every individual to participate in the remarkable opportunities that America has to offer. I believe that all Americans have a responsibility, and most have a desire, to share in our national burdens and to participate in our national response to crisis. And I believe that every action this Congress takes must reflect the values and principles that make this country so unique in its greatness. This bill is contrary to each of these beliefs, for it imposes practically the entire burden of putting our fiscal house in order on the members of our national community who are least able to bear it. This bill cuts more than $50 billion in mandatory spending on vital programs, such as food stamps, Medicaid, child support, student loans, SSI, and child care--$15 billion more than the $35 billion in mandatory cuts in the original budget resolution. The bill will lead to 250,000 people losing food stamps, will result in children missing mental health treatment or simple aids like eye glasses because of the $12 billion in cuts from Medicaid, and will make it more difficult for students to pay back student loans. The bill will cut child support programs and SSI benefits, and will force a decline in the number of children who receive child care while their single mothers work. Soon after considering this bill, we will consider another bill that proposes to reduce federal taxes by $70 billion. These tax cuts, and the corresponding benefits, will affect a much different segment of Americans than the bill now under consideration. Indeed, the majority of these tax benefits will go to the 0.2 percent of Americans with annual incomes over $1 million. They don't need this largesse, and we cannot afford to give it to them. Taking from the poor to give to the rich is wrong, and I believe that our constituents recognize that it's also un-American.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the Republic of Korea has long been a staunch ally and friend of the United States. In the last few years, South Koreans have been one of our strongest partners in the global war on terror. They have shown their commitment by supporting continued operations in Afghanistan. In line with the U.S. and Great Britain, South Korea committed the 3rd largest number of troops to support the efforts of our Armed Forces in Iraq. Korea has also adopted economic policies that have helped them become the world's eleventh largest economy, the United States' seventh largest trading partner, and the fifth largest market for United States agricultural products. In recognition of this steadfast friendship and unique relationship our nation has with the Republic of Korea, I am introducing legislation to make South Korea a Visa Waiver Program country. Under the Visa Waiver Program, a traveler to the United States, either for business or pleasure, can enter the country for up to ninety days without obtaining a visa. This courtesy has already been extended to United States citizens by the South Korean government. Currently, twenty-seven countries are on the visa waiver list, ranging from France and Japan to Brunei and Slovenia. The United States is home to over two million people of Korean heritage. By placing South Korea on the Visa Waiver Program list, we would make it easier friends and family the opportunity to visit our country and strengthen relationships with their loved ones. Currently, if a friend or family member wants to visit someone in the U.S. they must apply for a visa at the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, requiring travel to the capital city where the process often takes up to two weeks to complete. For many family and friends the process is too expensive and onerous to complete. Allowing the Republic of Korea into the waiver program will streamline this process, granting our South Korean friends the same opportunity to visit our country as people from our other allied nations. Placing Korea on the visa waiver country list would have a positive impact on our economy. More than 626,000 Korean citizens visit the United States each year. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, overall tourism dollars spent in the U.S. by tourists from the Republic of Korea exceeded $1 billion in fiscal year 2004. Visitation and tourism dollars are bound to grow if South Korea is allowed to be a part of the Visa Waiver Program. To curb any potential abuses, the South Korean government is taking aggressive steps to comply with post 9/11 security requirements to combat visa fraud. South Korea has already invested in state of the art technology and currently issues secure machine readable passports with digitalized photographs that are difficult to counterfeit. By 2007, e- passports will be introduced with biometric identifiers in compliance with International Civil Aviation Organization standards. Economically, militarily and politically, the U.S. and South Korean share a vision of freedom and democracy that has made our nations solid friends and allies. In recognition of this friendship and our shared history, it is time to ease the restrictions Korean citizens encounter when they attempt to visit our nation, which has strong cultural ties to the people of Korea.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a commendable and worthwhile non-profit organization which operates in my congressional district, the Legal Services of Northern Virginia. Legal Services of Northern Virginia (LSNV) is celebrating its 25th year of providing free legal assistance and representation to those in our society who are unable to secure it on their own. The founders and staff of this invaluable organization have dedicated their time and energy to give voice to those who often go unheard. The mission of Legal Services is to provide necessary legal assistance to low income individuals and families. The organization assists its clients on a wide range of issues including family law, consumer protections, housing, employment, and access to health care. Through the work of LSNV, thousands of eligible residents in Northern Virginia have gained access to health care; moved into affordable housing, received over due child support payments to care for their children, and achieved citizenship in our great country. Legal Services of Northern Virginia is an example of a great equalizer in our society. Without its extraordinary work and commitment of its staff, conscientious instructions and assistance, thousands of residents in Northern Virginia would not be able to pursue their legal rights and responsibilities. Over the course of 25 years, LSNV has made sure that rights are more than theoretical concepts. It has worked to ensure that our laws and legal protections apply to all men and women equally, without regard to race, religion, or income level. I am proud to stand before you today, in the House of the people, to recognize the great accomplishments of Legal Services of Northern Virginia.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 573, I was caught in traffic, returning from the Virginia polls. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for instructing conferees on the FY2006 Defense Appropriations bill to include the amendment by our colleague in the Senate, John McCain. This provision would simply provide for uniform standards for the interrogation of persons under the detention of the Defense Department and a prohibition on cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment of persons under custody or control of the U.S. Government. Senator McCain knows the ravages of war and devastating effects of inhumane treatment at the hands of an enemy. He and other American soldiers during the Vietnam War were subjected to terrible treatment that no human being ought to endure. In recent floor remarks, Senator McCain explained that during his time in captivity he and his fellow American soldiers drew strength from knowing that the institution to which they belonged, the U.S. military, and the country they served stood for the highest of principles and ideals. They believed that the U.S would never treat prisoners of war the way that they were being treated. No one would disagree that ``torture, cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment'' is unjust, but there is clear evidence that it is also ineffective. When put under extreme levels of pain or duress during interrogation, a detainee is more likely to say anything to stop the pain, regardless of its accuracy. Moreover, our own cruel treatment of others legitimizes the torture of American citizens. Look no further than the desecrated bodies of American citizens and soldiers killed in Iraq for tragic evidence of this reaction. Furthermore, torture and inhumane treatment aids in the recruitment of terrorists and fuels further terrorist activity. As members of Congress, we have the Constitutional obligation, under Article I, Section 8, to speak out on this issue and others related to treatment of foreign detainees in war. We also have a moral obligation to oppose cruel and degrading treatment of human beings, and a patriotic obligation to stand up for the honor of this country. In the wake of the scrutiny and embarrassment that our nation has endured following the treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, it is imperative that we proclaim to the rest of the world that this policy reflects the law of the land and the conscience of our country. Providing our soldiers with clear, written guidance on how to treat detainees not only protects their interests but underscores the freedoms and values we cherish as Americans and that we claim to be the reason we have gone to war in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts of the world. Today, as a Congress we must respect and honor our nation, those that risk their lives to serve it, and the high standards and ideals on which it is based. Supporting the McCain amendment is not an issue of political difference; it is an issue of national identity. The McCain amendment is needed to close a loophole in current policy that does not explicitly describe standards for foreigners held under U.S. custody abroad. This amendment reiterates and clarifies our existing policy that prohibits the use of torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment by U.S. soldiers and agents who are detaining and interrogating prisoners in the global war on terror, requiring that they use the techniques sanctioned in the Army Field Manual on Intelligence and Interrogation. I urge my colleagues to resist any efforts to accept a watered down version of Senator McCain's language that would grant exceptions for the CIA to conduct its own investigations of detainees in locations overseas that are independent of the Army Field Manual. Such a move, which apparently is being orchestrated by the Vice President's office, would only defeat the intent of the provision adopted in the Senate and cause further confusion among military and civilian service people charged with detainee interrogations. The Army Field Manual has been used as the standard for interrogation guidance since it was established during the Reagan Administration. The Manual does not cast any technique into stone, but changes with time and includes techniques and descriptions that are classified so as not to be uncovered by enemies. In a sign of broad bipartisan support, the Senate overwhelmingly approved the McCain amendment in a 90 to 9 vote. In addition, 28 retired military leaders, including General Shalikashvili, General Hoar, and General Colin Powell, have supported legislating the use of the Army Field Manual through the McCain amendment. In today's global war on terror, men and women in the armed forces are charged with the critical task of detaining and interrogating prisoners of war and enemy combatants without clear instructions on what is and what is not permissible. These ambiguities contributed to the absence of standards that resulted in the degrading and inhumane treatment that we, and the rest of the world, witnessed at Abu Ghraib and what apparently occurred at Guantanamo at the hands of young and ill-advised soldiers. The abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guatanamo stained the honor of our country and our military. I know that most of our constituents want to amend these wrongdoings. In order to do this, and to help protect the treatment of American soldiers who may be held as prisoners of war, we must give our troops clear instructions on acceptable treatment during detainment and interrogation, without equivocation. Let us not shrink from the responsibility that stands before us; let us rise as a united body to defend our principles, uphold our proud traditions and articulate to the world what America stands for. I urge my colleagues to express their support to Chairman Young to retain the McCain amendment, without modification, in the conference agreement to the FY2006 Defense Appropriations bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters). I must rise to object to this bill. I think it is too broad. The period of time within which you can take legal action is too long, and in some specific cases it is too restrictive. It will be subject to the law of unintended consequences. My views, I have to acknowledge, are formed by having been mayor of Alexandria, Virginia. We did at times use the power of eminent domain primarily to help lower-income people to restore blighted areas of the city. In those situations, the improvement of those rundown areas could not have happened without government intervention because the private sector simply was not willing to make the investment. We were able to establish scattered site public housing throughout the city. We were able to achieve substantial economic improvements along the Alexandria waterfront which had been relegated to a place of neglect where only people of the lowest income lived. And now people of all incomes are able to take advantage of public use in these areas, and we have expanded the availability of affordable housing. We could not have done it without this power. And, in fact, if our constituents did not like what we were doing, they had the ability to take us out of office through the normal democratic process. I understand that this is a power that can be abused, but that possibility does not warrant its elimination. In fact, if you want it restricted, the proper place to do so is not at the Federal level. It is at the State and local level. I have an amendment that will correct this bill so that it will not be subject to the law of unintended consequences. I intend to introduce that amendment shortly.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Well, here we have those folks who are considered to be on the far left and those on the far right and those just left of center and those just right of center; everybody agrees that this bill should be passed. It reminds me of a comment or observation that Plato once made: ``The minority are oftentimes wrong, but the majority always are.'' Now, I can understand why we are reflexively doing this bill, but I cannot understand why we would make this bill so broad with such an interminably long period of time with which to take any grievance to the courts, that it will create unintended consequences which will cause very severe consequences and economic problems for localities all over our country. We do not have one dictatorship at the local level of American government. Every single official at every single level of local government is elected, so all of them are responsible to the voters; and that is where this should be decided. But I am going to suggest two changes that will be achieved by my amendment. They address the two major deficiencies of this bill: first, it is much too broad; and, secondly, the period of time within which a government can be sued is much too long. The broad definition of ``economic development'' in section 8 includes a conveyance or lease of property that is ``to increase tax revenue, tax base employment, or general economic health.'' Unfortunately, practically every conveyance of condemned property can have at least an incidental or secondary purpose and effect of increasing taxes, creating jobs, or otherwise producing a positive economic impact, virtually everything that a local government may need to do even though that might not be the primary purpose of the taking. So the bill has the potential of prohibiting virtually every taking which occurs as part of public-private partnerships that are not for economic development purposes at all, for example, the conveyance or lease of condemned property as part of a public-private partnership to a private entity that could be used for a waste-to-energy facility. The processing of solid waste would be prohibited under this. Delivering recreational services in a public area, a public park. Supplying affordable housing. I could give you any number of examples that would have been precluded under this. Providing a parking facility in a downtown that is desperately needed in many communities. These projects may well produce tax revenues, new jobs, a healthier economy, but that is not the primary purpose of these projects. Their primary purpose is simply to deliver a service that the local community needs and to do so by partnering with a private for-profit entity. Yet the broad language of the bill would prohibit virtually all such public-private partnerships. My amendment addresses this problem by making clear that the bill reaches the conveyance or lease of condemned property definition only when the primary purpose of the transaction is the increase of taxes, jobs or economic benefits. That is a change that is very much needed to this legislation. Secondly, the time to file suit under the bill is much too long. Under the bill, a cause of action must be brought no later than 7 years following the conclusion of condemnation proceedings and the subsequent use of such condemned property for economic development. So where you have a property that was condemned, say, next year, in 2006, and the owner believes its economic development use begins in 2011, the owner has until 2018, 12 years after the property's condemnation, to challenge its validity. In many cases, the statute could extend the right to sue for generations to come. There is no need or reason to provide such a lengthy statute of limitations. The validity of a condemnation action has to be put to rest in some reasonable time; and the Judiciary Committee has, in other contexts, agreed with that principle. The 7 years should be measured from the conclusion of the condemnation proceeding. At this time, a property owner knows whether his or her property has been taken, knows the reasons for the taking, and can judge whether the taking is subject to the bill's prohibition. My amendment would reduce the statute of limitations to 7 years from the end of the condemnation proceeding, not 7 years after the property's economic development. Mr. Chairman, this bill needs additional clarification, and I do think this amendment would provide it. I have substantial problems with this bill. So I am reluctant to fix it, but I know it is going to pass. If it passes, it should be a bill that does not cause the kind of unintended consequences this bill will impose on every locally elected government. Third, the bill defines ``economic development'' as conveying or leasing condemned property from one private party to another private party--but not from the condemning government to a private party. However, in the ``real world,'' many economic development projects involve the conveyance of condemned property from the condemning authority to a private person or entity--a project the bill does not reach. For instance, the bill would not reach the conveyance by a city or county of 10 acres of taken property to, say, the Marriott Corporation for the use as a convention center, even though the primary purpose of the conveyance is the production of increased tax revenue and jobs. The amendment addresses this problem by including in the definition of ``economic development'' conveyances and leases from the condemning government to a private party. In addition, the bill makes some corresponding technical changes to the definition of economic development in light of the other changes I have just explained. Mr. Chairman, to conclude, this bill is too broad, too unclear, and overreaching. I urge you to adopt this amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for instructing conferees on this year's defense appropriations bill to include the amendment by our colleague in the Senate, John McCain. This provision would simply provide for uniform standards for the interrogation of persons under the detention of the Defense Department and a prohibition on cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment of persons under custody or control of the U.S. government. Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the scrutiny and embarrassment that our Nation has endured following the treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, it is imperative that we proclaim to the rest of the world that this policy defined by this amendment does in fact reflect the law of the land and the conscience of our country. Providing our soldiers with clear written guidance on how to treat detainees not only protects their interests but underscores the freedoms and the values we cherish as Americans and that we claim to be the very reason we have gone to war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world. Today, as a Congress, we must respect and honor our Nation and those that risk their lives to serve it, and we can do that by supporting the McCain amendment in the defense appropriations bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my two very good friends, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) for yielding me time, and I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) for bringing forth this resolution, which I support because it is a resolution of disapproval. Now, you should know where I am coming from, Mr. Speaker. In my congressional district there are almost 23,000 people being displaced because of BRAC. It is the equivalent of four major military bases. But we could accept that, and Senator Warner, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, has said as well we can accept that decision, but for the fact that it is inconsistent with the BRAC authorizing legislation which was designed to save money and to improve military effectiveness. It does neither. Initially, its was supposed to save $48.8 billion over 20 years. The latest analysis tells us that it is actually going to save only $15.1 billion over 20 years, about $700 million per year, which, incidentally, is about as much as we spend in a day in Iraq now. So the question is, why we would be disrupting the lives of so many thousands of people if we are going to save so little money. And, in fact, even this savings estimate is suspect because as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) has explained, it is based upon personnel savings, and all we are doing is moving the personnel around the country. That does not save any money. In fact, what is going to happen based upon the surveys we have taken of the personnel that are going to be displaced from northern Virginia, as many as 50-75 percent of the employees are going to decide not to move, to leave the government. And who are these people? Well, it turns out they are the most experienced, they are the most skilled, they are the very people that we need the most to lead our defense agencies. In other words, this is going to cause a brain drain, and it is one that we can ill afford at the Federal level. As many of you may know, because it applies to most urban metropolitan areas, with the cost of housing, both spouses have to be in the workforce, and it is very disruptive to tell families that one of the wage-earners has to move hundreds of miles away. In this case, the Missile Defense Agency is a good example. About 2- to 3,000 people are going to be moving down to Alabama. Now, I like Alabama, I like the gentleman who represents that district, but the reality is not all of them are going to move, because they like our schools, their children are in the school system, their spouses have jobs here, and most of them have security clearances, which means they are going to be picked up by the private sector in a New York minute. Is this in the national interest? I do not think so. I do not think it is in the national interest. I could see if we were going to save the money. I could see if we were going to follow the intent of the BRAC process, which was to improve military preparedness, but I do not know how we achieve that. We were supposed to take people that were in facilities that were overcrowded and move them to surplus facilities in other parts of the country. That is not being achieved. Now, Senator Warner, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, did a very extensive analysis, of the BRAC legislation because he happened to be the architect of it, and he shows that these decisions, are inconsistent with the intent of that authorizing legislation. That alone is reason to oppose the BRAC conclusions and support this resolution. We are going to, in fact, have to spend billions of dollars on building new facilities, and the fact that that money is going to have to come out of the Military Construction, Quality of Life appropriations subcommittee where we need to be conserving money to pay for veterans health care for the thousands of veterans that are coming back from the Iraq and Afghanistan war, defies common sense. I do not think this is in the national interest, Mr. Speaker. I think that this body should support this resolution of disapproval until we get recommendations that show us how we are actually going to save money and improve military effectiveness. Now, Secretary Rumsfeld has improved new building standards, and that was the justification that the BRAC Commission used to move these people. And the building standards necessitate that you cannot be within 100 feet of the sidewalk where the public is allowed. You cannot be near a public transit station. You cannot have public underground parking. You cannot do any of the things that you have to do in a metropolitan area like northern Virginia or the Washington metro area, even though we have buildings that are right on the sidewalk that are just as important in Florida and Texas that were not touched. But in northern Virginia they made the decision to implement these building standards as they apply to any DOD agency no matter how unlikely a terrorist target that agency might be. But there are very different building standards that apply to the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the FBI, all of these other agencies that would be just as likely a terrorist target, so it does not seem to make sense. In fact, I question why we would have published the location of all of these defense agencies when terrorists did not know where they existed, could not even figure out the acronyms for the agencies. But we have very different, inconsistent building security standards, one by the General Services Administration, which has the authorizing responsibility for building Federal buildings; and another by DOD, which is not supposed to be building its own buildings, but are requiring enormous restrictions that preclude a location in a metropolitan area anyplace in the country, and that are going to cost such a premium to build, they are going to make them prohibitive for any other activity to be in those buildings. Mr. Speaker, I could go on at greater length on why I do not think that these recommendations make sense from a cost standpoint, from a military effectiveness standpoint, from just a common-sense standpoint. I will not do that, but I will summarize by again pointing out that these recommendations are going to cost billions of dollars to build new buildings for DOD money that we do not have, that we are going to have to take from veterans health care. It is not going to improve our military preparedness. It is going to cause a brain drain in terms of many of the agencies that we rely so much on for technological superiority and intelligence. And when you have a recommendation that causes such additional cost and is going to make it so much more difficult to implement our military mission, I think the right thing to do is to reject it. That is what this resolution does. That is what I would urge my colleagues in this body to do, to vote for the resolution of disapproval that has been offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) so as to have the administration go back and tell us ways they can, in fact, save money, ways they can, in fact, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our military mission.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act. As an advocate for reasoned and balanced reform to our American judicial system, I am afraid that today's bill overreaches and sets a dangerous precedent for future legislation. H.R. 420 treads unnecessarily on judicial independence and makes litigation overly burdensome for legitimate cases to have their fair day in court. Primarily, this legislation encroaches on the judicial rulemaking process by changing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, over which Congress has no rightful jurisdiction. This rulemaking process is the responsibility of the Judicial Conference and the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the requirement that State courts apply these new Federal rules is an intrusion on State judicial authority. I strongly believe that the integrity of the judiciary is in question if we impose our own set of rules on this independent body, particularly as Congress continues to limit judicial discretion. This action is wrong, and one of the reason that judges from across the Nation overwhelmingly oppose this legislation. Furthermore, I believe this bill inhibits legitimate cases from having their day in court. Plaintiffs that have just cause for action, particularly in cases dealing with civil rights, may reconsider because of the threat of mandated sanctions and the elimination of the 21-day ``safe harbor'' rule. This chilling effect on meritorious legal claims does not offer honest Americans justice. I also have concern that this bill will not deter frivolous lawsuits. Despite the anecdotes my colleagues have offered, there is no empirical evidence that Rule 11, which this bill seeks to change, is not working. In fact, recent studies indicate that frivolous litigation is declining. Mr. Chairman, I will continue to approach tort reform with the objective of ensuring that any legitimate cases have their day in court. I don't believe the bill before us today meets this standard.