Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. I applaud the work of the conferees and their willingness to find compromise and drop the most controversial and anti-environmental provisions, particularly the authorization to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the liability exemption for the petroleum industry to finance the clean up of drinking water contaminated with MTBE. I think some of the electricity and utility provisions are more balanced and appropriate. But, I am still disappointed that this bill falls far short of what this institution and our nation must undertake to remove our dependency on oil and fossil fuels. You would think that in the two years since we last attempted to pass energy legislation, we would have a different bill. World oil supplies have tightened, the price of oil has shot up to over $60 a barrel, and many of our foreign sources of oil, the Middle East, in particular, but Africa and Venezuela as well, have grown even less stable. What we are considering today is an improvement over what the House passed earlier this year, but absent the two controversial provisions I mentioned it's still practically the same bill from last Congress. It even has the same bill number, H.R. 6, as last time, as if it were photocopied with complete indifference to the disturbing news and international developments that have recently come to pass. We are an oil-based economy, with about 60 percent of our oil imported from abroad. While coal, uranium and some renewable sources such as wind and hydro comprise a majority of the fuel used to generate electricity, most of our economy is dependent or exclusively reliant on oil, from fertilizers for agriculture, plastics for manufacturing to gasoline and diesel for transportation. Mr. Speaker, we need a crash course in developing cleaner alternative sources of energy and a Herculean effort to reduce our present level of oil consumption. Nowhere are we demanding greater fuel efficiency in our vehicles. This conference agreement actually extends a loophole that allows automobile manufacturers an exemption from today's weaker fuel efficiency requirements for vehicles that use ethanol. During the next 10 years, this loophole alone is estimated to increase our oil consumption by 15 billion gallons of gasoline. Had we improved vehicle fuel efficiency through higher Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency, CAFE, standards, 27 miles for light trucks and 33 for cars back in the early 1990s, we could have displaced all the oil we imported from OPEC today. This bill is shamefully silent on that issue. Mr. Speaker, this bill is deficient and heads our country in the wrong direction. It rushes us closer to the day oil shortages occur and sets us backward on our ability to address it. As a nation, we are blessed with a land of immense beauty and natural wealth and a people of great ingenuity and resourcefulness capable of overcoming vast challenges and obstacles. It is unfortunate that so much of this legislation has the effect of exploiting the former and reflects such little faith in the latter. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to address my colleagues on this side of the aisle, the Democratic side of the aisle, because there are so many good people and true leaders among you, people who understand that we need to do more than we have done for Central America and Central Americans. In a perfect political world, a Central American trade agreement should have passed on the Consent Calendar. In a perfect world it would have, because there is virtually no Member of Congress who does not have undocumented immigrants who have risked their life and limb to come to the United States so as to provide some future for themselves and their families. Many of our grandparents could empathize, but surely we who were born here must at least sympathize. We all know the conditions in Central America. You would have to be blind or without conscience not to recognize the suffering that Central Americans are enduring. Thirty percent of the population cannot afford the most basic foodstuffs. In most countries, more than half of the population are living in poverty. Certainly we feel some obligation, do we not, to do something about it? I understand the politics, though, and I regret the politics. But from the standpoint of policy, certainly this could and should have been a much better agreement. We should have addressed labor conditions in a more robust way, likewise, in language to preserve the environment. But on the whole this agreement does much more for Central America than we will have the opportunity to do in a long time to come, and that is the reality. Today we have a perfect storm of political confluence where the elected leaders of all of these nations are products of democratic elections, and their leaders are telling us they want this trade agreement to pass. The leader I have the most respect for, Oscar Arias, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, wrote an editorial, in the Post, and I trust we read it on both sides of the aisle. The thrust of his argument was, please give us an opportunity to stop having to export our people and let us begin to export our products and our services. And the only way that we can do that is to provide an incentive for all these multinational corporations, people with capital to invest, to invest it in Central America; ultimately invested in the human infrastructure, the roads and the bridges, the transportation and the communication systems, and the human infrastructure, the people, their education, their skills, their training. It will be in their interest. It is not in their interest now. Central Americans have paid the price for a system of government that continually exploited people who had no power; that was ruled largely by a handful of elite families, many of them descendents from the original European settlers who came there half a millenia ago. For 500 years they have been suffering. It is time to put an end to their desperation and isolation. They need and deserve a seat at the table of the global economy. I am not going to try to justify or rationalize or excuse all of the problems with a globalized economy. Certainly people lose their jobs and people are hurt, but the global economy is a reality of today's world. And if you are not at the table, you will suffer. We cannot maintain even the status quo in Central America any more than we can in this country. If CAFTA doesn't pass poverty will get worse in Central America. Jobs will continue to be lost at an even faster pace to China and other countries who are more competitive, and capital will go elsewhere if we do not pass this trade agreement. It is in so many ways deficient. I am not going to argue about that. But it is a fact that over the next 4 years $160 million is going to be invested in enforcement of labor laws, labor laws that are actually pretty good on the books of these nations. They are not enforced, but today this is the best opportunity to have them enforced. There will not be another opportunity to have them enforced, and we have that commitment. And, likewise, the environment will not be exploited to the degree that it has been. It is not a perfect agreement, but it is our responsibility, our duty, as far as I am concerned, to pass this agreement now, to work with Central America, to work with the people that will invest in Central America to bring about a better world. A world one day of opportunity for the best and brightest Central Americans in their own country, so they don't have to risk everything in pursuit of it outside their country of birth. I do understand that it is important to be on the right side of the political equation tonight, but it is even more important to be on the right side of history, and I think the right side of history will prove to be a yes vote for CAFTA.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today marks the fifteenth anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Signed into law by George H. W. Bush on July 26th in 1990, and enacted with bipartisan support in the Congress, the ADA served as the world's first comprehensive declaration of equality for people with disabilities. Following in the footsteps of civil rights legislation from the 1960s, this landmark legislation has sought to end discrimination against people with disabilities in the workplace and encourage full integration into American society, particularly through enabling independent living. In its fifteen years of existence, the ADA has accomplished much. Access ramps, curb cuts, Braille signs, and assistive listening devices at movie theaters now appear in communities around the country. Transit and communications systems have become more accessible. Indeed, the ADA has contributed to a greater awareness among Americans as to the needs and potential of people with disabilities. Yet despite this progress, I remain deeply concerned that the promise of the ADA has not been fulfilled for many of America's 54 million citizens with disabilities. For example, empirical evidence demonstrates that there has been little change in the employment rate of people with disabilities. Only 32 percent of working-age people with a disability are employed. Today, people with disabilities are three times more likely than those without disabilities to live in poverty. There is much progress still to be made. Unfortunately, in recent years the federal courts have narrowly interpreted the ADA and have not enforced key provisions of the Act, especially in regards to the workplace and the applicability of ADA to state law. Moreover, the Administration has proposed funding cuts to key programs--Section 8 housing, Medicaid, and vocational rehabilitation and assistive technology--which enable many people with disabilities to achieve self-sufficiency and live independently. On this anniversary of the American with Disabilities Act, we must make sure that we fulfill the promise made to our disabled brothers and sisters fifteen years ago. Indeed, the goals of the ADA could not be more pertinent than they are today, when thousands of soldiers are returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan with severe injuries. It is my hope that we can move forward today to fully realize the goals of equality and integration set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5, which purports to help stem rising medical malpractice insurance premiums and relieve health care professionals, but, in reality, will have very little effect. What this body should be considering today is comprehensive medical malpractice reform and this measure does not even come close to achieving this important goal. Last night, the Rules Committee did not make in order several amendments, which taken together, would have achieved true comprehensive medical malpractice reform. Earlier this year, I, along with Brian Baird, Dutch Ruppersberger and Dan Lipinski, introduced the Comprehensive Medical Malpractice Reform Act of 2005, which would have achieved three key goals, namely (1) constrain the cost of medical liability insurance and reduce unwarranted litigation; (2) protect the rights of patients who have been harmed to receive proper and justified compensation; and (3) improve overall the quality of health care in our country. Unfortunately, we, along with several other Members, were denied the opportunity to improve H.R. 5 with these amendments. One of our amendments that was denied debate would have set reasonable limits on non-economic damages. We all know that a cap of $250,000 on non-economic damages is too low since some valid cases with catastrophic or lifetime injuries may merit additional compensation, particularly in the case of the negligent death of an infant. Our amendment would have set a cap on awards for pain and suffering that is based on California's enactment into law of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act in 1975. Many provisions of H.R. 5, including caps on non-economic damages, are modeled after this California law. Our amendment would have indexed non-economic damages at the rate of inflation, which comes to about $877,000 in today's market. Certainly a far more reasonable number than $250,000. This amendment would also have weeded out frivolous lawsuits by going after lawyers who continue to file claims that are not substantiated by evidence or expert opinion. Courts would be able to impose a ``3 Strikes & You're Out'' law and suspend from practice for no less than one year, lawyers who file their third frivolous lawsuit. Our comprehensive medical malpractice reform package also considers alternative dispute resolution, as a means of avoiding litigation, while at the same time, still addressing victims' rights. We modeled this provision after a successful program at Rush Medical Center in Illinois. This first-ever hospital based mediation program has proven to be very beneficial to the hospital and other health care providers, and brings closure for individual plaintiffs and defendants. Over the years, the number of suits against Rush has declined and other hospitals have conducted mediations and have reported favorable results. Our amendment would have given health care institutions the training necessary to implement mediation programs. Another rejected amendment would have given liability protection to those health care providers, who in good faith, report to report to state medical boards regarding the competence or professional conduct of a physician. These good-faith reporting health care providers would not be held responsible for attorney fees and costs incurred as a result of legal action. According to data from the National Practitioner Data Bank from 1990 to 2002, just 5 percent of doctors were involved in 54 percent of all medical malpractice payouts, including jury awards and settlements. More startling, the data shows that of the 35,000 doctors with two or more payouts during that period, only 8 percent were disciplined by state medical boards. Health care providers need better whistle-blower protections. Currently there is an imbalance between the legal obligation health care workers have to report errors or unusual incidents and the legal protections they have against retaliation once they report these incidents. Greater liability protections for health care workers would help to ensure that future medical errors are not made, as well as give state medical boards the opportunity to work with colleagues on weeding out those doctors that provide an inadequate quality of care to patients. Those who are going to support H.R. 5 today will return to their respective congressional districts during the August recess and brag to the doctors that they voted in favor of medical malpractice reform. What they will not tell their constituents is that H.R. 5 is DOA when it is sent to the Senate for consideration, and that the other body would not think of entertaining legislation with inadequate caps on awards. Nor will proponents of this bill reveal that H.R. 5, if signed into law, would not stem rising medical malpractice insurance premiums, because not one provision contained in this bill reforms the insurance industry. Last night our colleagues on the Rules Committee squandered a valuable opportunity to actually fix the root problem of medical malpractice. Let us send a message to the American people that we are now prepared to take the issue of medical malpractice reform seriously. I urge all my colleagues to vote against H.R. 5.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Small Business Health Fairness Act, H.R. 525, which will allow small businesses and associations to band together to purchase health insurance coverage for their workers and their families. The Small Business Health Fairness Act can directly benefit the over 2,300 small businesses and associations in my congressional district and their employees. H.R. 525 would allow AHPs and small businesses to be certified under one Federal law, instead of 50 different State regulations. Like large employers and labor unions that offer health insurance to their employees and members, AHPs would be regulated by the U.S. Department of Labor. Many opponents of the Small Business Health Fairness Act claim that AHPs will ``cherry pick'' and therefore only benefit healthy people. This is not true. All AHPs must comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which prohibits group plans from excluding high- risk individuals that have required repeated health insurance claims. H.R. 525 also guarantees that only bona fide professional and trade associations can sponsor an AHP. This measure ensures that AHPs will undergo a strict, new certification process before they will be allowed to offer health benefits to employers. This new certification process includes stronger solvency standards, including stop-loss and indemnification insurance. Studies have shown that AHPs would save the typical small business owner between 15 percent and 30 percent on health insurance. Currently, there are 45 million Americans who are uninsured. Even more troubling is the fact that 60 percent of uninsured Americans work for small businesses that lack the resources to provide health care benefits to their workers. In fact, 65 percent of small-business owners indicate high cost as the main reason why they do not offer health insurance. Small employers are facing 50 percent premium hikes, even as many insurers are leaving the small group market because it is not profitable enough. The time to offer small businesses and associations the ability to band together to offer health insurance to their employees is now. The Small Business Health Fairness Act represents a first step in helping to lower the number of uninsured Americans, many of whom work for small businesses. H.R. 525 would introduce more competition into the market, reduce unnecessary regulation and administrative costs and make health coverage more affordable for small employers and their employees. I urge support of H.R. 525.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the devastation of 9/11 shook our collective consciousness to the core; but it should not have shattered the foundation that defines who we are as a people and serves as a beacon of individual rights and liberties throughout the world. Our Nation has been able to overcome the challenges of the past by proving to ourselves and to the world around us that our rights and our values are the indispensable conditions of being an American. If we allow the threat of fear and terror to undermine our civil liberties, we will have failed not only the Founding Fathers who bestowed upon us the philosophical foundations of this great Nation, but more importantly, we will have failed the future of America as the last great hope of mankind. Mr. Chairman, an unforeseen consequence of these infringements on American citizens' civil liberties is the erosion of our standing as the international leader of the rights of people. With each fundamental mistreatment of our own citizenry, we broadcast an image around the world that will, in fact, come back to haunt us. We will become what we deplore: a hypocritical pseudo-democracy of freedoms granted from the government down instead of from the people up. Mr. Chairman, do not rewrite our precious Bill of Rights. Vote against this bill just as our Founding Fathers would have.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, last week representatives and leaders of Virginia's Native American tribes left their communities and flew to England to participate in ceremonies that are a prelude to the 400th anniversary of the first permanent English settlement in America. Some of the distinguished Virginia residents who are making this trip are the blood descendants and leaders of the surviving 25 tribes that once were a part of the Great Powhatan Confederacy that initially helped sustain the colonists during their difficult first years at Jamestown. Virginia's best known Indian, Pocahontas, traveled to England in 1617 with her husband John Rolfe and was received by English royalty. She died a year later of smallpox and is buried in the chapel of the parish church in Gravesend, England. My colleagues, there is tragic irony that while the Kings and Queens of England have recognized the Virginia tribes, starting with Pocahontas and affirmatively with the Treaty of 1677, the United States Government has not. Today, the Virginia tribes even sport a T-shirt that says, ``First to welcome, last to be recognized.'' Mr. Speaker, it's long past time for Virginia's Native American people to be recognized by the Federal Government. Joining me today are my fellow Virginians: Representatives Jo Ann Davis, Tom Davis, Bobby Scott, and Representative Dale Kildee, in introducing the ``Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act.'' This legislation will grant Federal recognition to six Indian tribes in Virginia: the Chickahominy Tribe, Chickahominy Indian Tribe Eastern Division, the Upper Mattaponi, the Rappahannock Tribe, the Monacan Tribe, and the Nansemond Tribe. As we approach the 400th anniversary of Jamestown, we are long overdue in recognizing the direct descendants of the Native Americans, who met these settlers. We must acknowledge these historic tribes, they have endured and remain a significant part of Virginia's heritage. Together, the men and women of these tribes represent a long neglected part of our Nation's history. Like much of our early history as a nation, the Virginia tribes were subdued, pushed off their land, and, up through much of the 20th century, denied their full rights as U.S. citizens. Despite their devastating loss of land and population, the Virginia Indians successfully overcame years of racial discrimination that denied them equal opportunities to pursue their full rights as citizens of the United States, from public education, the right to vote, and even the most basic right to claim their own identity. That story of survival doesn't encompass decades, it spans centuries of racial hostility and coercive State and State-sanctioned actions. Unlike most tribes that resisted encroachment and obtained Federal recognition when they signed peace treaties with the Federal Government, Virginia's six tribes signed their peace treaties with the Kings of England. Most notable among these was the Treaty of 1677 between these tribes and Charles the II. In more recent times, this racial hostility culminated with the enactment and brutal enforcement of Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924. This act empowered zealots, like Walter Plecker, a state official, to destroy records and reclassify in Orwellian fashion all non-whites as ``colored.'' To call yourself a ``Native American'' in Virginia was to risk a jail sentence of up to 1 year. Married couples were denied marriage certificates and were unable to obtain the release of their newborn child from a hospital until they changed their ethnicity on the State record to read ``colored,'' not ``Native American.'' For much of the 20th century admission to public schools was denied. Even after federally enforced integration, the State and localities refused to provide bus service to the public high schools. These and other indignities are part of a shameful legacy experienced in our lifetime. More to the point, this legacy has also complicated these tribes' quest for Federal recognition, making it difficult to furnish corroborating State and official documents. It wasn't until 1997 when then Governor George Allen signed legislation directing state agencies to correct State records that had deliberately been altered to list Virginia Indians on official State documents as ``colored.'' I am proud to say that Senator Allen and Senator Warner are two of Virginia's strongest advocates for seeking a legislative remedy for the Federal Government to recognize these tribes. Federal recognition would provide what the government has long denied, legal protections and financial obligations, including certain social services and benefits the Federal Government provides the 562- recognized tribes. I know that the gambling issue may be at the forefront of some people's concerns. For some of my colleagues there are sincere concerns about the morality and destructive effects of gaming. For others, it has been a convenient excuse to look no further and keep a closed mind. I have worked to close any potential loophole in this legislation to ensure that the Commonwealth of Virginia could prevent casino-type gaming by the tribes. Having worked on this issue for several years, I have gotten to know many of the members of these tribes and believe they are sincere in their claims that gambling is inconsistent with their values. This position is already borne out by the fact that none of the tribes today engage in bingo gambling despite the fact that they have all established non-profit organizations that are permitted under Virginia law to operate bingo games despite compelling financial needs that revenues from bingo could address. The real issue for the tribes is recognition and the long overdue need for the Federal Government to affirm their identity as Native Americans. Coupled with this affirmation is an opportunity for the tribes to establish a more equitable relationship with the State and secure Federal financial assistance for the tribes' social services, health care and housing needs. Many of their older members face the prospect of retiring without the pensions and health benefits that most Americans take for granted. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, truth, trust, and accountability should be the defining characteristics of the American Presidency. President Bush's press secretary, in October of 2003, Scott McClellan, told the White House press corps and, through them, the world at large that Karl Rove and two other high-level administration officials had assured him that they were not involved in outing CIA covert agent Valeria Plame. He said that unequivocally. Now we find that Karl Rove has sat back in timid silence while he has watched two reporters go through the costly, torturous experience of legal prosecution, all to protect his identity. Mr. Speaker, the 41st President of the United States, George Bush, for whom the CIA headquarters is named, said that what Karl Rove did was an act of treason. Mr. Speaker, it is time to hear from the President of the United States.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the four bills relating to the Occupational Safety and Health Act that the House of Representatives is scheduled to consider today. While these measures purport to protect the safety and health protections of millions of American workers, in reality, they will do nothing of the kind, and will instead undermine existing workplace health and safety laws. The statistics on workplace safety is frightening. It is estimated that nearly 4.7 million workers are injured and almost 6,000 workers die due to workplace accidents each year. Thanks to the Occupational Safety and Health Act, workplace safety and health conditions have improved, though there are still great strides to be made, and this is the time for OSHA regulations and requirements to be strengthened, not weakened. On an average day, 152 workers lose their lives as a result of workplace injuries and diseases, and another 12,877 are injured. These measures do not address the fact that workers are still losing their lives due to unsafe working conditions. Instead these bills punish the very workers the authors of these measures claim they are trying to protect. By allowing employers to challenge OSHA citations, they will undermine the Occupational Safety and Health Act's enforcement policies by penalizing the agency when it attempts to enforce the OSHA law and does so unsuccessfully. H.R. 742 would require OSHA to pay attorneys' fees and costs for employers with 100 or less employees and a net worth of $7 million or less in any administrative or judicial proceeding in which OSHA does not prevail. While OSHA is already required by law to pay attorneys' fees and costs in any proceeding in which the agency's charge is not substantially justified, H.R. 742 goes beyond that, because now OSHA will be hesitant to cite employees for violations of the OSHA unless there is absolute certainty that they will prevail in a court of law. If OSHA, the federal agency that is tasked with enforcing the law, is hesitant to raise awareness to a meritorious workplace safety issue because they might not win, the true losers in this case are the American workers. Employees have no private right of action under OSHA and depend on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to address their concerns and remedy violations of the law. H.R. 742 also purports to help ``small businesses'' recover the cost of attorney's fees, but in fact, this bill would apply to the majority of private sector workplaces. It is widely known that across all industries, businesses with fewer than 100 employees have a higher rate of fatal occupational injuries than do businesses with 100 or more workers, which typically have better workplace safety standards in place. It is troubling that this Congress is attempting to rollback the few safety and health workplace regulations that are currently in place, instead of strengthening OSHA standards in order to save the lives of American workers. I urge all my colleagues to vote against these measures and protect the rights of American workers and their families who deserve a decent, safe and healthy workplace.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. We have done this to ourselves. We are $9 trillion in debt. We cannot purchase all this debt. We rely upon other countries throughout the world, whoever is willing to, to purchase our debt. The highest proportionate increase is attributable to China. China is buying up our debt faster than anyone else. Now, what do we think they are going to do with it? If they choose to dump it on the world financial markets, we go into a depression, I say to my colleagues. It is a financial guillotine they are holding over our neck. Far better that they use these financial assets to purchase American corporate assets in the same way that Japan did several years ago. If you do not want China purchasing our assets, then do not put us into the kind of deficit situation that we have created. It is far better that China diversify their holdings. If they do not buy American oil companies or Western oil companies, since they desperately are in need of energy to sustain their economy, where are they going to go? They are going to go to Iran, they are going to go to other countries that are not in our interests, and we are going to start contributing to a bipolar world again. We just got through a Cold War with the Soviet Union. If we act in this way, and I know the domestic politics of it, but if we start doing things like this, we are going to contribute to another bipolarity, another Cold War here, which is not in our interest We have American oil companies who own drilling rights and oil resources off China's shore. It is in our interest to start balancing the budget and issue less debt. But it is not in our interest to forbid China from purchasing assets, even within the United States with that cash and U.S. debt securities that they own. They need to do that. We need to be serious about this and levelheaded. And so I would oppose the amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the ranking member from Massachusetts, and I also want to associate myself with the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin and his remarks. We have no right to overturn a law that has been on the books for three decades. The gentleman from Indiana, I know, believes in democratic governance. But he wasn't elected by D.C. residents. He was elected by his constituents in Indiana. What right does he have to overturn D.C.'s law particularly in this situation that puts D.C. residents at such serious risk? If the Souder amendment were made law, it would allow anyone who owns a firearm to carry it loaded and without a trigger lock on city streets throughout the District of Columbia. How does that make sense from a homeland security perspective? We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to secure our Nation's Capital from terrorists and now we are going to turn around and make it okay to carry a loaded AK- 47 or a .50-caliber sniper rifle down Independence Avenue? Are we serious? That is perhaps the unintended effect, but it is clearly the effect of this legislation. In 2003, the police confiscated 1,982 firearms from criminal suspects. They would not be able to do that if this amendment passes. They confiscated almost 2,000 last year. This overturns their ability to do that. This amendment is an affront to the concept of home rule, my colleagues, a slap in the face to the people of the District of Columbia. It gives a new meaning to hypocrisy when we talk about fighting so hard to achieve democracy in Iraq. We have an insurgency raging in another part of the world. We are committing lives and billions of dollars to achieving that objective of a democracy, of giving people the right to represent their own interests, to have the people they elect making the laws that govern them. Yet we would consider an amendment that opens another front on the city streets of our Nation's Capital? This is unbelievable that we would even be considering such an amendment. I strongly urge a negative vote against this outrageous amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the chairman of the appropriation subcommittee for yielding me the time. Notwithstanding what my good friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) said, this really goes back to a contract that was issued more than a couple of years ago. It was as a result of very competitive bidding and the winning contractor is required to pay U.S. taxes on every dollar earned in the United States. Every employee employed has to pay U.S. income taxes on the revenue they earn. Now, if the gentlewoman wants to suggest that there are any contracts where money is not being paid in taxes for revenue earned in the United States, I would agree with her, or if there are employees working in the United States not paying taxes I wholly agree we should collect from them. But also bear in mind when we do these things, they often come back to haunt us. Trying to change the Tax Code in an appropriations committee is generally not the most effective or appropriate place to make tax law. It can come back to haunt us because we have got so many other corporations that are doing business in other parts of the world and we do not want to be suggesting to them that they ought to shut off that business. What goes around, though, generally comes around. The revenue earned overseas does generate tax revenue into our government here. But it won't if foreign countries decide to punish American corporations who might win bids on European or Asian or Latin American government contracts. Like it or not we must compete in a global economy. We have got to be very careful with the precedent that we set. The contract that was issued was competitive. It is a Homeland Security contract. And from everything I understand, they are doing good work and paying 100 percent of the taxes due.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I do not have any objection to a review of this contract, and I certainly understand the domestic politics, but I think we need to be fully aware of two things about this: how China is able to purchase UNOCAL, and why they need to. The how is all about what we have done to ourselves. With $9 trillion of public debt outstanding, somebody has to buy it, and 44 percent of our Treasury debt, I say to my colleagues, is foreign-owned. The fastest-growing component of that foreign ownership is in China, and it is a darn good thing for us that they are buying it, because if they were not, our interest rates would be much higher than they are today. They are keeping our interest rates low, but it does not come for free. The fact is, if we say that they cannot use that money legally to purchase assets, to give 16+ billion to American shareholders in return for a corporate asset, what are they likely to do? They are going to say this currency is not as valuable to us as it is to other people in other countries, so we are going to have to dump this, and imagine what that would mean. They are holding a financial guillotine over the neck of our economy, and they will let it drop if we do things like this that are not well-considered. Now, the why. They desperately need energy to keep their economy sustained, but if we do not let them invest in western firms, what are they going to do? They are going to invest more capital in Iran, in Sudan; they are going to make those governments even stronger than they are today and a much greater threat to us. So think seriously about this. Now, the reality is that UNOCAL only produces about 1 percent of our oil and gas production, and they intend to market that and continue providing that to the United States. Also bear in mind, though, that American oil companies have a whole lot of drilling rights and oil reserves off the coast of China. We have an investment all over the world, and when we start with these kinds of resolutions, start deciding, well, we are not going to let the market work, we are not going to let free enterprise control this, this is not truly a globally free economy if it is not completely to out liking. We are going to treat China differently. I cannot stand State-controlled economies. But when we start doing things like this, there are ramifications that we have not thoroughly thought out, and I think we need to be very careful about passing resolutions like this. Again, I understand the domestic politics, I understand why we do not want State-owned companies controlling American oil companies, but I also understand why China is doing this. Their CEO was educated in the United States. They will keep all of UNOCAL's employees. Chevron plans to save millions by firing most of them. This is one of the better-run Chinese companies. Ultimately what they are proposing is much more in our interests than the alternatives also available to them. So let us fully consider this before we pass this resolution. I'm voting no.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment not just for the compelling reasons of the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), but because if it is allowed to stand as a precedent, it will cost the American taxpayer tens of billions of dollars in additional pension costs. Support the American taxpayer and support the Miller amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I support this amendment, even though I can fully understand where the gentlewoman from Connecticut and the gentleman from Wisconsin are coming from. But part of the problem we are trying to address here goes back to the Medicare prescription drug legislation which requires that the Federal Government pay the full retail cost of these drugs. A substantial part of the cost of these ED drugs is attributable to TV advertising. They are spending approximately a half a billion dollars a year on television advertising, saturating the airwaves during family viewing hours when they know the parents and the kids are sitting in front of the television; and now the taxpayer is going to be paying for this cost of advertising. That is the difficulty. While I understand that we do not want to go down a slippery slope, bear in mind that when we start including these lifestyle drugs in Medicare, that is money that could be spent against cancer and heart disease and Alzheimer's and all the higher priorities that we ought to be using Medicare trust funds for. So I support the gentleman. I do not think that ED is a health care priority. But the larger issue is should the taxpayers be required to pay for TV advertising, much of which is inappropriate in its message. I did not have any problem, I have to say, when Bob Dole was the pitch man; nobody would, except maybe Elizabeth for sharing more than the world necessarily needed to know about their personal lives. But the point is, these ads on TV today are offensive, and we are spending half a billion dollars on them. The American public does not want them saturating the airwaves, and they certainly do not want to be paying for them; and unless this amendment passes, they will be paying for them.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a family from Virginia's Eighth Congressional District whose recognition is long overdue. For every person of national recognition there is a local leader that accomplishes much under the shadow of their more recognized peers. Two of these people are Dr. Edwin and Mrs. Mary Ellen Henderson, civil rights pioneers from Northern Virginia who have worked for social justice for nearly 50 years. The couple, who were married for 65 years, worked tirelessly for the education of African American children. They also chronicled the early civil rights struggles in letters to the editor published around the country and energized their community in Northern Virginia to join the Nation's civil rights movement. The Hendersons viewed education as one of the primary sources of human progress, and they both served their communities as teachers. Mary Ellen filled the difficult position of teaching the fourth, fifth, sixth and sevenths grades in the local segregated schoolhouse. The two- room facility overflowed with children, and it was heated by a potbelly stove and that lacked running water. Despite these difficult conditions of segregation, Mary Ellen taught with vitality and enthusiasm. Not satisfied with her inequitable surroundings, Mary Ellen worked to improve the conditions around her. By her own measure, she launched a study into the disparity between white and black schoolhouses, focusing on the learning environment and resources. Mary Ellen's work led to the formation of an interracial committee in Fairfax County, and ultimately the decision of the school administration to build the first new school for African American children in the area. Dr. Edwin Henderson also dedicated his life to education. He focused his efforts on the promotion of interscholastic athletics and was certified as the first African American man to teach Physical Education in public schools. An avid basketball player himself, Edwin is credited with introducing the sport to the Washington, D.C. area as well as promoting athletics within the surrounding African American community. He organized the Interscholastic Athletic Association for black schools, the Public School Athletic League, and the Eastern Board of Officials for African American athletes. In addition, Edwin authored several books that spread awareness about the emergence of black sports. His groundbreaking works included ``The Official Spaulding Handbook,'' ``The Negro in Sports,'' and also ``The Black Athlete: Emergence and Arrival.'' Edwin was a powerful force behind the positive recognition accorded to these athletes. As a result of his efforts, Edwin was admitted as a charter member to the Black Athletes Hall of Fame. The Hendersons also endeavored to improve the rights of African Americans in their community. In 1915, their hometown of Falls Church, Virginia, proposed to segregate all African Americans to a designated living area. The couple vehemently challenged the law by uniting people under the Colored Citizens' Protective League (CCPL). The CCPL succeeded not only in defeating the segregation ordinance, but also in advancing numerous civil rights endeavors. The organization later became the first rural branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, in which the couple was highly active. The Henderson's contributions were extensive and continued to be felt throughout Northern Virginia. Although they coveted no recognition for themselves, these extraordinary individuals not only affected their community, but also helped shape the Nation. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to honor these great Americans today.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to congratulate the Computer Community Outreach and Education program, or Computer CORE, of Alexandria, Virginia, for celebrating its fifth anniversary. This wonderful non-profit program promotes the realization of better job opportunities through basic computer skills training. It is offered to unemployed and under-employed adults in Northern Virginia, who may have little or no experience with computers, but have something much more important to each of them: an insatiable desire to learn, achieve, and contribute to our society. These students come from a wide array of families and backgrounds, but all of them leave with the proficiency necessary to enter the workforce and contribute to the economic development of our nation. They leave Computer CORE not only with competence in keyboarding, word processing, and spreadsheets, but also with the ability to identify their own strengths and interests, set goals, develop resumes and cover letters, and pursue their goals and the American dream. In addition, they leave with a free refurbished computer of their own, allowing them to continue to develop their skills at home, as well as teach their families the valuable skills they have learned. None of this would be possible without the hard work of Debra Roepke, the executive director and founder of the program, as well as the staff of instructors who generously volunteer their time and energy to help these students acquire the skills they need to achieve the American Dream. Through hard work and education, the students of the Computer CORE classes are grasping their future and entering a new stage of life. After graduation, these students will find new job opportunities they never had before. Some will continue at institutions of higher education. Some will teach their families they skills they have learned. But all of them will have truly experienced the American dream.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this amendment in support of public broadcasting. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Obey-Lowey-Leach Amendment that would recoup full funding for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting for Fiscal Year 2006 because it will maintain the highest quality programming available to the American people today. The Labor-HHS Appropriations Act before us today will eliminate $100 million in Federal funding for the CPB. This bill will eliminate existing funding earmarked for interconnecting local stations and the transition to digital broadcasting--both necessary modernizations to carry public broadcasting through this century. Money to fund these improvements will be taken from general operating expenses, further limiting public broadcasters' resources. Public broadcasting provides unique programming not found on major broadcast stations or cable television. Its programming aims to increase awareness, provide multiple viewpoints, treat complex social issues completely, and provide objective forums for deliberation. Public broadcasting serves no partisan master. It is the most ``fair and balanced'' programming available. Its listening audience, polls have shown, is \1/3\ liberal, \1/3\ conservative, and \1/3\ middle of the road politically. Newt Gingrich tried to zero out public broadcasting subsidies 10 years ago. He acknowledged before an audience recently an ironic evolution. He listens to NPR every morning now as he drives to work. While most television programming provides few outlets targeted and appropriate for young children, public broadcasting offers families unparalleled excellence and value. Whether it is Sesame Street or Reading Rainbow, public programs have taught generations of children practical grammatical and arithmetic skills while expanding their imagination and creativity. At a cost of just over $1 per year per person, what parents and children get from free, over-the-air public television and public radio is an incredible bargain and a national asset. In Arlington, WETA, an invaluable FM and television station that serves us in Northern Virginia and Washington, DC, estimates that the proposed cuts will result in the loss of $1.6 million. Like most stations, WETA operates on a limited budget and the magnitude of this cut threatens the cancellation of programming such as ``Talk of the Nation'', ``Seasame Street'' or ``Marketplace.'' I'm even more afraid for rural radio and television stations that are even more reliant on public funding. America won't accept a cut in these services. The harm they would do to children's education and the marketplace of ideas outweighs what little effect these cuts would have in the reduction of government spending. The Ameircan people understand we have a robust economy today. These cuts in programming are to pay for the tax cuts we've enacted over the last 5 years for the wealthiest among us. If anything, we demand an expansion of public broadcasting. We want more programming that promotes detail, diversity, and balance. We need programs that take creative risks to engage the public in thoughtful discourse. I urge my colleagues to support the Obey-Lowey-Leach Amendment and restore funding for the CPB. Do it for your own children.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time. The only point I would like to make is that since 1995, this appropriation has only grown by 4 percent. So in more than 10 years we have only had a 4 percent growth, much less than inflation. We have worked hard to reduce the number of copies. We have eliminated the bound copies of the Congressional Record. I do not know if people have noticed, but we eliminated that which used to be a tradition, and since 1995 we have reduced the number of copies from 18,000 per day to 6,000. I mean, that is substantial progress. The largest cost of the Record is preparing the data for printing and on- line dissemination, and that cost is going to be occurred regardless.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I do not know the names.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the esteemed leader from Wisconsin for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this is a Trojan horse of a new and growing financial obligation that we really need to deal with now and to accept the committee's recommendation that it be consolidated with the U.S. Park Police mounted unit. That is what makes the most sense. In May of 2004 we began with six horses. We were told it would cost about $100,000. Now it costs $145,000. They want another $10,000 for a replacement horse. But, the salaries and the benefits of the Capitol Police officers that are involved in this come to approximately $600,000. So it is not $145,000, it is three-quarters of a million dollars. Where they are housed is 20 miles away. These police officers have to travel for at least an hour mile down the whole distance of Route 1 to pick them up, another hour back. We are going to move another 18,000 people down to Fort Belvoir, so it is going to be a lot longer than that. And now, Mr. Chairman, really, we are now told that they had not figured this out, but they are going to need what is basically a giant pooper scooper to be able to clean the grassy area after the horses have gone by it. Now, I would suggest to the Chairman and to this body that there is not much grass left to patrol. I was out jogging today. It was one little grassy area left, and they were putting up a chest-high fence to keep the public off that grassy area. I do not know where these horses are going to be parading. And the little spot, what is left now is about the size of somebody's backyard, and I guess it makes it easier for the pooper scooper, but the problem is that we are paying a substantial amount of money, about three-quarters of a million dollars for very limited benefit. I just cannot imagine why the Capitol Police need a mounted police unit, particularly given all of our other priorities.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations for yielding me this time, but most particularly for his leadership. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) made several points. Some of them were consistent with the comments of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) that there are a lot of good things about this institution and the facilities that we fund. But the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out some of the concerns that many of us share over the Capitol Visitors Center. I share those concerns as well, having been the ranking member of the legislative branch subcommittee before it was incorporated in the full committee. We raised these, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), and I. It is not meant to be argumentative, but we have created a situation where the Capitol Visitors Center is going to create some substantial problems in the future. We have a facility that is going to cost well over what was originally estimated. The original estimate was $165 million. We are now over half a billion dollars. We were going to try to get private money. It is all Federal money now, of course. We were going to have it ready for the January 2005 inauguration. Obviously, we are way behind schedule; but that happens in a lot of construction projects. We recognize this is going to be completed, and there will be a number of things that we will be proud to show. But some of these situations are going to cause more problems than they are worth. For example, we are creating an enormous capacity for visitors. One would think that would be a good thing, but what is going to wind up happening, they are going to be given a virtual tour of the Capitol. The reason for that is we have the capacity for twice as many people to come into that Capitol Visitors Center as can ever come into the Capitol itself. Now, do you want to be the Member who tells your constituents, after traveling from any place in the United States, and for many of them it takes a whole day to get here, they stay here, they are all excited and they get to the Capitol Visitors Center and want to go to the Capitol and you have to tell them well, actually, there is no room? Half of the people coming into the Capitol Visitors Center are probably going to have to be informed there is no room in the actual Capitol for you to be able to make a visit today. That is a substantial problem. I think we should have figured that out. I am glad we have capacity; but, again, is it consistent with our real objective, which is to enable all our constituents to see the U.S. Capitol itself? The taxpayer is paying for this. A lot of the decisions have really not been made by the Members as much as staff, I have to say. It is not the staff of the appropriations subcommittee that has made those decisions, but we have got some major concerns. I think they are well- founded concerns. I want to raise one now, though, that is not a matter of legislation, but it is one that has been brought to my attention as cochair of the Congressional Prevention Coalition. We have tried to do some things to address public health concerns. One of them is in regard to smoking. We have a ban on smoking in all Federal buildings but we exempt congressional office spaces. I do not want to change that necessarily, I can understand why there is an exemption in place, but we have a particular problem with the Rayburn cafeteria. With that, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the full committee on this because I do think we need to address it. In the Rayburn cafeteria, the main dining room is overflowing with patrons generally every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday; and so those patrons are forced to spill over into the designated smoking area. The same thing happens when we close the main cafeteria for receptions and special events. Because that main designated area is the only place available on that floor for smoking, it gets pretty asphyxiating according to many of the staff who have contacted me. I think we need to address it because some of these people have real serious health problems in terms of their breathing capabilities; some have asthma and other related problems. They just cannot deal with all of that smoke and they do not have any choice to avoid it given the situation that frequently occurs. I yield to the chairman of the full committee to see if he has some suggestions in how we could alleviate this problem for the nonsmokers.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the chairman and I thank the interest of Ms. Johnson, the lead staff for the committee on legislative branch issues. Would the chairman be willing to make sure that this gets raised to the appropriate people so we could address it in a constructive way?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution because I disagree with this attempt to muddle our First Amendment rights. I understand and acknowledge the passion that my friends and colleagues demonstrate today. It is disturbing to see images of someone burning the flag of the United States, particularly when we reflect upon the countless men and women who have given up their lives defending this symbol of freedom. When I was first elected to the House, I cosponsored a flag burning amendment. I did so for many of the same reasons that proponents of the amendment have expressed today. And yet looking back, I realize I was moved by my heart than by my head. History reminds us that the strength of America is derived from its basic ideals, one of the most important of which is tolerance for the full expression of ideas, even the acts that we consider obnoxious. As our Founding Fathers originally intended, the First Amendment to the Constitution has safeguarded the freedom of expression. Tested through times of war and peace, Americans have been able to write or publish almost anything without interference, to practice their religion freely and to protest against the Government in almost every way imaginable. It is a sign of our strength that, unlike so many repressive nations on earth, ours is a country that not only accommodates a wide-ranging public debate, but encourages it. Mr. Speaker, a friend of mine and former Senator of Virginia, Chuck Robb, is a man who sacrificed greatly for his nation, in both the Vietnam War and in his political career. Exemplifying a ``profile in courage'' Senator Robb stood against public popularity when he voted against this amendment in order to defend the very freedoms that the American flag represents. In his moving Senate floor statement, Senator Robb described how as a soldier he had been prepared to give up his life in the Vietnam War in order to protect the very freedoms that this constitutional amendment would suppress. By showing the courage to vote against this amendment, he jeopardized his political career and subsequently lost his bid for me re-election. Not having fought in a war, I should do no less than Senator Robb did in defense of die freedom he and so many of my peers were willing to defend with their lives. Mr. Speaker, this amendment should be defeated. In our hearts and our minds we know that flag burning is not a threat to our freedom, limiting the exercise of individual liberty is.