Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend the gentleman from South Carolina for his leadership. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscally responsible Democratic alternative budget offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and in opposition to the Republican leadership's unbalanced budget. Mr. Chairman, the annual budget resolution is not a legally binding document, but a guide, a blueprint for our Nation's budget. While the House regretfully--and irresponsibly--failed to pass a budget resolution last year, we should not by our inaction diminish its importance. The budget resolution should reflect this body's values and priorities and those of the American people. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the majority's 2006 budget resolution does not reflect the American people values, priorities and needs, let alone their children's needs. This budget will, in fact, hurt the vast majority of Americans for years to come. This budget resolution makes tax cuts for the wealthiest in our society its top priority. By contrast, it puts little or no priority on programs to serve veterans. It slashes funding to protect the environment and eliminates numerous education programs. Low-income households and underserved communities take the worst hit through excessive cuts to health care programs, education, critical infrastructure and housing. These funding cuts include the elimination or substantial reduction of 150 programs. For example, the Department of Education eliminates 48 programs, costing a total of $4.3 billion, and the Department of Health and Human Services eliminates 33 health and social services programs costing $2.0 billion. Some cuts are implemented over a 10-year budget window, but many are eliminated entirely in fiscal 2006. For example, all vocational education programs are eliminated immediately. The budget slashes $522 million for all technology education programs and $437 million for State grants for safe and drug free school and community programs. The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, budget is cut by nearly one half billion dollars, jeopardizing EPA's ability to enforce environmental regulations and coordinate mitigation programs with State and local governments. The Republican budget cuts veterans' health care by $14 billion below current services over the next 5 years. These cuts come at a time of unprecedented growth in demand for services. The Veterans Health Administration, VHA, is struggling to provide adequate health care services for our aging Vietnam, Korean, and World War II veterans, in addition to serving the needs of the countless and increasing Iraq war veterans. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the administration's policies expressed through this budget will result in deficits of $250 billion or more each year over the next 10 years. The programs I just cited represent a small portion of the discretionary budget. Targeting environmental, veterans, health care, education, basic scientific research and housing programs for cuts, while advocating permanent tax cuts that benefit the highest income tier, is not the way to balance the budget. These discretionary programs represent only 16 percent of the deficit but are charged with nearly 100 percent of budget cuts. While the tax cuts represent the cause of the majority of our deficit, they will not be pared back but instead are made permanent. The Bush administration and its House leadership proposes to make tax cuts permanent even though this policy would cost $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Mounting debt and enormous interest obligations will be borne by current and future generation. Equally troubling, most of our new debt is being purchased by foreign nations. Japan and China, for example, hold nearly $1 trillion in American debt. A decline in the dollar's value against the Euro during the last year has not gone unnoticed by foreign governments that finance U.S. deficit spending. Financial ministers have expressed increasing concerns about America's unwillingness to reduce deficits. Asian nations, including South Korea, are now balancing their currency portfolio with Euro purchases. Without a historical comparison it is difficult to adequately predict what impact these trends will have on American economic and national security. Some of us are growing increasingly concerned by the administration's lack of a comprehensive strategy for reducing our reliance on foreign financing. even acknowledgment of the problem would be helpful. The President has insisted on cutting taxes during a time of war. You don't finance two wars with five tax cuts. President Bush is the only president ever to do so, and his stubborn pursuit of additional costly ``reforms'' (such as the multi-trillion dollar Social Security privatization plan) seriously imperils America's ability to compete in the future against emerging economies in Asia and the European Union. Our economy, particularly in my home district on Northern Virginia, is currently in pretty good shape. But our standard of living and growth cannot be sustained if we insist on deferring enormous debt and interest obligations to future generations. The House leadership's blind acquiescence to the President's policies is regretful and irresponsible. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Republican leadership's budget, which basically rubber stamps the President's budget. I strongly support the Spratt alternative Democratic budget, a much more responsible and morally defensible budget.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is based upon two facts that I think we agree on on both sides of the aisle. One was very articulately expressed by the chairman of the defense appropriations committee earlier today when he asserted the fact that we are a coequal branch of government. We are equally responsible for what military activity we engage in. We will be held equally accountable. And the fact that we hold the purse strings makes it incumbent upon us that we have some expectation of how much a war is going to cost, how we can budget for it, and particularly what measurable criteria are we seeking to enable us to complete our mission. The second fact is one that has been expressed time and again, particularly by our senior military officers, that we ought not engage in military activity, that we ought not go to war without a plan to win the peace. That is what this amendment addresses. It would give nominal resources to the Secretary of Defense to be able to give us the kind of information that we need to work with the executive branch to evaluate how we are doing in terms of succeeding in our mission in Iraq. For example, what level of physical infrastructure reconstruction does the administration feel is necessary for the Iraqi economy to be viable. We have invested billions of dollars in reconstruction. How much more might be necessary? In terms of political stability, are we waiting for ratification of the constitution and then a subsequent election? And if that election goes well, will that mean that we can gradually begin completing our mission at least in terms of the proportion of the troops that are currently committed? And, particularly, what level of Iraqi security forces will be necessary? We have been given wildly varying numbers, 40,000 to 160,000 to over 200,000. What does it mean for Iraqi security forces to be adequately trained and equipped? Does it mean a 6-week training course in human rights, which some have suggested meant that they could be considered security forces, or does it mean the kind of intensive training for many months that is comparable to what we give our troops so that they can engage in battle and can show leadership in the face of military confrontation? Those are things we need to discuss together. What we want are the measurable criteria. It is not an unreasonable expectation. And when we pass a supplemental that contains $600 million for a new embassy that maintains our substantial force in Iraq, we want to make sure we do not give any credence to our enemies who, in Secretary Rumsfeld's expression, seem to be able to recruit insurgents greater in number than we could ever possibly kill. They are able to do so by accusing us of being permanent occupiers, thereby denying Iraqis of true sovereignty over their own country.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it would remain in the bill that the administration would have to detail and share with us what is their strategy for success.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Federal Transit Benefit Act. This legislation codifies Executive Order # 13150 that directed all executive branch agencies to provide their employees in the national capital region with the full tax-free transit benefit provided under current law. Initially the benefit was set at $65 per month, but increased to $100 per month beginning in January 2002. Give up your car and parking spot and you can receive a voucher to cover a portion of your transit or van pool cost commuting to work. The benefit has been a godsend to this region, helping to reduce traffic congestion, reduce air pollution and improve quality of life issues for Federal employees. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Government estimates that this benefit has boosted ridership in transit services and van pools by more than 100,000 Federal employees and reduced vehicle miles traveled between 40 million and 54 million. The legislation I am introducing today will extend this benefit to the other branches of the Federal Government, the legislative and judicial branches, all independent Federal agencies, postal workers and the Smithsonian that were not covered by the executive order. I have long sought to maintain parity in salaries and benefits for all Federal workers. This legislation restores parity ensuring that those Federal agencies that don't currently provide this benefit for their employees will do so. The legislation will also remove current law restrictions and enable Federal agencies to offer their employees shuttle services between their office and transit centers like Metro, MARC, and Virginia Railway Express. Under current law, Federal agencies are prohibited from providing shuttle services to their employees if it is not a part of official business. The Federal Government is the region's largest employer. As such, it can and should do more to help its employees cope with some of the Nation's worst traffic congestion and in doing so help reduce harmful automobile emissions that have pushed this region into severe nonattainment. This legislation was unanimously approved by the House Government Reform Committee last session. Its need is long overdue.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. Governor Warner of Virginia has contacted us in support of Mr. Davis's amendment because he does not see how exempting low-income people from having to pay is enforceable. I fully agree with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), my very good friend, that we do not want to put people in situations that they cannot afford, particularly the working class that we are trying to provide adequate transportation for, so that they can get to work in a timely manner. In so many of our States, however, I certainly know in Northern Virginia, we do not have a way to move anybody unless we can figure out some more innovative way, and these HOT lanes do seem to give us the means to provide more transportation access. And I do not see how it is enforceable to do what the gentleman from Minnesota wants to do.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, in the 30 seconds remaining, I want to talk about one other point on a related issue, rather than take up the committee's time later in the day. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for the report language that addresses teen driver traffic accidents. It is good language. We are going to conduct a study on what we ought to be doing with regard to teenagers being responsible for such a high percentage of fatal crashes. It has gone from 6.6 percent to almost 15 percent now. We are going to get a report to the committee to come up with some model driving school curricula and graduated licensing requirements. That makes a lot of sense, and it is good report language. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for bringing this amendment up and for the committee for entertaining it, and I trust that it will pass, hopefully, unanimously.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would love to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota. (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to first express my appreciation to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox). He is a friend and colleague, but most importantly, when his constituents have a very serious concern, he has shown he effectively addresses the concerns of his constituents in California. And I appreciate his crafting this amendment. It is somewhat different from the amendment that I had in a bill, but it is certainly consistent. What gives rise to the need for this amendment is what happened back in 1994, when the Tow Truck Operators Association slipped in language in the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization that claimed that towing was interstate in nature and, thus, can only be regulated by the Federal Government, which fell under the Interstate Commerce Commission. Then, in the next year, in 1995, the Congress passed the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, and thus, there was no one to regulate towing at the Federal level. Now, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) very rightly says, most towing companies do not need regulation. They do a good job. You know, they do what they are supposed to do; they are decent people. Unfortunately, when you have an unregulated situation, you do have a few bad apples, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has said. And they will take advantage of that situation and act in an abusive manner. That is why I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), our wonderful ranking member, for letting us bring this amendment to the floor. It does involve transportation. It is appropriate to be included here. And, you know, nobody is trying to take too heavy a hand on any sector of the industry. But, the fact is there have been abuses. In Arlington County alone, many of my colleagues live in Arlington County, they have had 280 cases of abusive victimization of people that have been sent to the courts in just the last 2 years. Now, a lot of this stuff, you know, it does not need to happen. You do not need to damage a car when you tow it, letting it drag along the street. You do not need to treat people abusively, particularly young single women who have their car towed and have to go to a remote, dark place and have to have a hundred dollars in cash instead of being able to write out a check or show a credit card. There have been abuses. And there have been abuses in Los Angeles. Mr. Cox cited the case, what tow truck operator in their right mind, who in their right mind would tow a car with a baby in the car seat, the mother goes frantic, and the baby is towed to some tow truck lot. Those are the kinds of abuses that we need to eliminate. And that is why the Cox amendment makes the owner of the property responsible. If the States choose, they can require that the owner be present when the vehicle is towed. That makes a lot of sense. If it does not work, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has agreed, we will pursue this further, until we give reasonable regulatory authority to States and localities. I think this is simply a commonsense amendment. I want to thank a former colleague, Mr. Bereuter; the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter); the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry); they were cosponsors of the legislation. And I look forward to working with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman form Alaska (Mr. Young) the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). You know, we will come up ultimately with the kind of regulatory authority that States need to bring this under control. But, we are not after all of the towing companies. Most of the towing companies are doing the right thing, and they are behaving as we would under that situation. It is just there are some abuses. We need some regulatory authority to bring them under control.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Job Training Improvement Act, because it will reduce important job training programs such as the veterans employment programs, Perkins Vocational Educational Program and the Vocational Rehabilitation Program. This measure consolidates the adult, dislocated worker and employment service programs and funding into a block grant, while also repealing the Wagner Peyser Act and removing many of the federal performance and accountability measurements that make the Workforce Investment Act such an important investment in our nation's workforce. With the unemployment rate at 5.2 percent, it is reprehensible that this legislation will repeal a dedicated funding stream for one-stop centers where job seekers can learn about job opportunities, apply for aid and receive counseling. We all know what is going to happen if Workforce Investment Act programs are block-granted. States are not going to spend that money where it is needed the most, which is to aid job seekers in this troubling economy. Instead, these funds may be used to cover infrastructure and administrative costs. This will go against the true intent of the Workforce Investment Act, which is to invest in our workforce. Even more troubling is the fact that H.R. 27 reduces preventive in- school youth training programs which keep students from dropping out of school. President Bush has pledged to expand the No Child Left Behind law to high schools and require students to take annual tests in reading and mathematics through 11th grade. So the president wants to ensure that students and teachers are held accountable for learning standards, but he lacks support for programs that strive to keep kids in school? As we all know, these workforce investment programs are already critically underfunded. They strive to meet the increasing demands placed upon them in an environment of increasingly inadequate resources. To be effective, these programs cannot sustain these devastating cuts. Finally, the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act would eliminate the civil rights protections of Americans, by exempting religious organizations from anti-discrimination requirements. The message that we are sending to the millions of Americans who are unemployed, who are veterans and those who are in need of economic assistance is that we do not care about keeping them from falling further into an economic crisis. This bill fails as a reinvestment in our workforce and fails to aid the millions of jobless Americans who need it the most. I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of the Scott Amendment which will protect current civil rights protections for employees and job applicants of faith-based organizations.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, every year approximately 300 recalls of potentially hazardous and dangerous consumer products are conducted by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Tragically, many of our constituents are never aware that a product in their home has been recalled due to safety concerns. In recent years more than 11 million potentially injurious products were on the market including baby cribs, strollers, and children's toys. The return rate for these recalled products is less than 20 percent. That means over 8 million life-threatening products are in homes across the Nation. The main reason the return rate is low is that manufacturers do not have a proper system in place to notify consumers when their product has a defect. This is why I am introducing the Product Safety Notification and Recall Effectiveness Act of 2005. This legislation requires manufacturers to include a product registration card or offer online product registration for every juvenile product, small household appliance or other product the Consumer Product Safety Commission deems necessary. These registration cards may not include any marketing information which is often a turn- off for consumers. The only use for these cards and the on-line registration is to create a database of necessary information to contact consumers directly in the event of a product recall. The Product Safety Notification and Recall Effectiveness Act of 2005 will help protect children and families. In 1993, the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration, NHTSA, introduced a mandatory registration card program for child safety seats similar to what this legislation proposes. A study published regarding this program, found that the registration program resulted in nine times more child safety seats being registered. An increase of 56 percent more seats were brought in for repair. These registration cards are helping to save lives. This legislation has been endorsed by the Consumer Federation, Consumer Union and several other consumer and safety advocacy groups. They know that something needs to be done to help protect everyone from potentially hazardous items. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation. We have a responsibility to ensure that every family and every person in our congressional districts are aware of any recall to help improve their safety.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, even though I am in opposition to his position and favor this bill. This is not a radical bill, nor is it regressive. In fact, it is a reasonable compromise designed to address what is an abuse of the judicial system. That is why The Washington Post endorses this bill. It is why the Democratic Senators from New York, California, and Illinois all voted for the bill. In fact, Democratic Senators representing 19 States voted for this bill in the other body. Why did they do this? Because they believe on balance that consumers are going to be better represented in Federal courts. And this notion that somehow State courts are going to be more inclined to represent consumer interests rather than Federal courts on issues like tobacco and civil rights and so on, I do not think history proves that to be the case. I am particularly sensitive to these charges that this bill is going to inhibit civil rights actions. Clearly if we look at history, it is the Federal courts that have been far more insistent upon enforcement of civil rights than State courts. Even recently in the Home Depot case, a gender-discrimination case, it was settled with a $65 million settlement, filed in Federal court. The Coca-Cola racial-discrimination settlement, which guaranteed each class member recovery of at least $38,000, was achieved in Federal court. Contrast that to the Bank of Boston case, where the depositors in Boston were not even aware they were members of a plaintiff class, where a lawyer filed suit down in Alabama supposedly representing their interest, and they found out when they had their bank account reduced by $90; $90 was taken out of the mortgage escrow account from these depositors to pay the lawyers when they were not even aware they were a member of the plaintiff's suit, and the lawyer walks off with $8.25 million. That is judicial abuse, and that is what this bill corrects. This is a reasonable bill. The fact is that in so many State and local courts, they do not have the resources to go through the mountains of evidence that have to be presented in class action suits. In Federal courts they are far more likely to have those resources. They have court clerks and they can hire magistrates that can go through all of the evidence. There has been far too much abuse where judges have certified these settlements at the tort lawyer's request and then, the defendant has to settle for large sums of money. That is not the way it is supposed to work. On balance, I think the judicial system will be far more fair, responsible, and reasonable under this compromise bill; so I would urge my colleagues, particularly on the Democratic side, to support this bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank my friend and colleague from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, I plan on voting for this bill because I think it is about doing the right thing for the public interest. But I am going to vote against the rule, because we are missing an opportunity. We miss an opportunity to address the fairness issue, which is a very important one. I also think we miss an opportunity to strike a blow for family values over corporate profit. It seems that too often when the two are in conflict, invariably this Congress lets corporate profit trump family values. What I am referring to is an amendment that I offered. It is a bill that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), myself, and others have cosponsored, that I put in the form of an amendment because it seemed relevant. What it would do is to treat ED ads on television in the same way that we treat ads for tobacco and hard liquor. They cannot be shown until after 10 o'clock. The reason for doing this is that our airwaves are saturated with these ads for erectile dysfunction drugs. I think it has gotten out of hand and I do not think it is right. When I bring this subject up, people giggle and it is awkward to talk about it, but it is wrong in prime-time viewing hours, such as the Super Bowl when you have got tens of millions of people watching, a lot of them young kids, to be saturating the American public's mind with these pitches for ED drugs. It is just wrong. Most of it is for the purpose of competing between brands. It is a particularly relevant issue to the Congress and to the American taxpayer because next year this administration has decided to let Medicare cover these drugs. So here we have a finite amount of Medicare that needs to be used for cancer treatment and heart disease and any number of serious illnesses, and yet we are going to take a substantial amount of this taxpayers' money and use it to give to the drug companies to help them pay for advertising. As my colleagues know, in the Medicare prescription drug bill, we forbid the Federal Government from negotiating for lower prices of these drugs. These drug companies are paying half a billion dollars a year for advertising these drugs. And now as of next year, the American taxpayer is going to be footing a substantial amount of that bill. It is wrong. These things should not be advertised during family viewing times. It was one thing when Bob Dole and people of a certain age, which is pretty much my age as well, were the pitchmen. But these are younger actors today. It is disingenuous to be describing this drug as medically necessary. As is the way that they warn of side effects, be careful for a 4-hour experience and so on. We know how disingenuous that is. We can giggle about it, but the fact is it is wrong. It is not appropriate when young, impressionable, teenagers and children are watching. We have some responsibility for what goes across the airwaves. They are public airwaves. This amendment should have been added to this bill for consideration today.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman if the revenue numbers also include the surplus that is coming in from FICA taxes, from Social Security. Because what this administration has been doing is really masking the seriousness of the deficit that they have created, because they have been taking the Social Security surpluses and offsetting it against the actual deficit to make the deficit appear much smaller.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, what I am getting at is, I remember, as the gentleman does, when the Clinton administration acquired a substantial surplus and was projecting at the end of the year 2000 about $5.5 trillion of surplus. To meet the Social Security obligations for the next 75 years, what they were going to do is to take the Social Security surplus and put it back into the Social Security trust funds, so we would not have this issue with regard to supposedly bankrupting Social Security. All of that could have been avoided if we had followed through on those policies. Unfortunately, what this administration did was to promptly pay out that money in tax cuts. We have been talking about these high numbers, trillions and billions; in fact, I wish the people, if there is anyone watching at home, they might write down what $1.7 trillion represents. It is 1 comma 7, and then 11 zeroes. Mr. Speaker, $1 trillion is a thousand billion; a billion is a thousand million. This is an enormous amount of money that we have reduced our revenue by as a result of tax cuts, most of which went to the people who needed it the least. Now, what is most troubling, I think to many people that we represent, is the cuts that are going to occur in the lives of people dependent upon programs. I want the gentleman to conclude his points, but when we talk about cutting $60 billion out of Medicaid nursing home costs and health costs for children and eliminating vocational education, all of it relates back to this policy, and it seems almost as though it is an excuse to cut domestic social programs that represent only 16 percent of the deficit, and yet almost 100 percent of the cuts are coming out of these domestic social programs. But I would like to address that, and I would like to elaborate on that in a bit. I know the gentleman wants to conclude his comments and hear from our friend, the gentleman from Maine, as well.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because February brings to mind a time of year dedicated to hearts in the form of chocolates, cards, candies and sweet mementoes. Very little attention, however, is given to the health and the condition of the actual heart these candies and mementoes symbolize: the human heart of a loved one. It is imperative that we pause during this season to recognize the importance of cardiac health in our children, families, and loved ones. There are nearly one million adults and children living with Congenital Heart Defects (CHD) in the United States alone, and his number continues to rise as nearly 40,000 children are diagnosed each year. Despite these figures, very little recognition is given to the victims and families of those suffering from CHD. Many of the children born with CHD are not diagnosed until days or even months after birth. This lack of detection endangers those who live without knowledge of their illness. Among the many infants affected, the symptoms drastically range in severity and medical costs. Some children are barely affected by their defect, requiring nothing more than occasional monitoring. However, there are also families placed under the heavy emotional and financial burden of a severe heart defect that requires lifelong medical attention. The cost of multiple open heart surgeries, drugs, and raised insurance premiums becomes a special problem for low income families. Numerous organizations provide these families with support and financial aid to protect their loved ones, but these groups are only able to help a small percentage of people due to the lack of national recognition of CHD. Raising a national consciousness about the defects and their effects will provide hope and comfort for those who have struggled with heart defects. Jeanne Imperati, the loving mother of a child with a heart defect, had the foresight in 1999 to begin a campaign focused on spreading awareness through a Congenital Heart Defects Awareness Day on February 14. On a day already dedicated to hearts, it is a simple and meaningful endeavor to remind the nation of this worthwhile cause. More attention can be given to the regularity of the defects and research about their possible cause. Creating a network of informed people throughout the nation is a simple way to provide support for survivors and their families. While we go about the tradition of honoring loved ones this Valentine's Day, let's also give our support to those affected by Congenital Heart Defects and their cause. Awareness is the first step toward saving lives and protecting those whom we love.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure, which supports the goals and ideals of National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day, which was February 7, 2005. This measure recognizes the fifth anniversary of National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day and encourages the President to emphasize the importance of addressing the HIV/AIDS epidemic among the African-American community, especially among African-American women. The statistics on HIV/AIDS in the African-American community are alarming. Over 172,000 African-Americans are living with AIDS and this population represents 42 percent of all cases in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also estimate that 69 percent of all children born to HIV-infected mothers were African- American. On a whole, African-Americans have the poorest survival rates of any racial or ethnic group diagnosed with AIDS, with 55 percent surviving after 9 years compared to 61 percent of Hispanics, 64 percent of whites, and 69 percent of Asian Pacific Islanders. Another goal of National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day is to encourage State and local governments, including their public health agencies, to recognize this day and to publicize its importance among their communities as well as to encourage individuals to undergo testing for HIV. At this time, I am particularly pleased to recognize the city of Alexandria and Wholistic Family Agape Ministries Institute for hosting a city of Alexandria Unified Outreach Event in recognition of National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, African- American females account for 76.5 percent of the female cases and African-American males account for 55.1 percent of the cases. On February 7, Mayor Bill Euille, on behalf of the Alexandria City Council, issued a proclamation urging all citizens to take part in activities and observances designed to increase awareness and understanding of HIV/AIDS as a global challenge, to take part in HIV/ AIDS prevention activities and programs, and to join the local and global effort to prevent the further spread of HIV and AIDS. The Wholistic Family Agape Ministries Institute and the city of Alexandria should be commended for their efforts to provide information and support to the Alexandria community and help to lower the percentage of African-American individuals contracting HIV and AIDS.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the problem with this bill is that it is an immigration bill posing as an identification bill. Instead of listening to what the States told us needed to be done to make driver's licenses more secure, what we have done is to basically make State motor vehicle employees unwitting immigration agents. It does little to improve homeland security, and it is certain to prove overwhelming and ineffective. Now, I support what the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) is trying to do to improve the integrity of driver's licenses, but I find it curious that the leadership of the House has chosen to largely ignore the multiple references in the 9/11 Commission Report to the value of on-card biometric technology in improving the integrity of identification cards. The problem is that these digital images are not sufficient. Matching the image with the face is more prone to error than the technology that would use biometric data. Two fingerprints transformed into numeric algorithm, that works. What we have here does not work. I think we are going to find the States letting us know that. Unfortunately, it will be too late. We will miss an opportunity.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, tonight is another historic opportunity for the President to give direction to this country through the State of the Union address. I know we will all be watching, and we will all be hoping that he provides the kind of direction that we need, both internationally and domestically. Internationally he certainly deserves credit for the kind of turnout that was experienced in Iraq. It was at least equal to, if not more than, most people expected. He still needs to reassure us that there is a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq and that, in fact, he has plans to make this a safer world by dealing with truly critical situations in North Korea, in Russia in terms of its retreat to greater control of the economy and the society through a more repressive attitude. And particularly in light of the fact that there are still thousands of nuclear warheads in Russia, we need to make sure through programs such as the Nunn-Lugar bill that those nuclear warheads will never be accessible to terrorist groups. There are a great many challenges internationally. Hopefully, he will rise to the occasion and provide leadership in the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, which is still the prism through which most Arabs and Muslims really throughout the world view our willingness and determination to provide balanced, just, and effective leadership in bringing about the kind of economic and social interdependence that will stabilize that part of the world and protect Israel from its enemies and enable Israel to continue to be a true democracy and, in fact, a model for the other regimes in that area in terms of full democratic participation. These are all important objectives internationally, and we trust that the President will provide the kind of leadership we need, and I am confident that the Democrats will hold him fully accountable for the results in 4 years. But we start out now with a President that has just been elected with a clear majority, something that did not happen 4 years ago. We need to work together. And what we are told on the domestic front is that the emphasis is going to be upon deficit reduction and primarily upon reforming the Social Security system. This is not where the emphasis needs to be in terms of the Social Security program. Clearly, the budget deficit is in a crisis situation. We need leadership to lead us out of that crisis situation. We are currently spending 20 percent of the gross domestic product and bringing in only 16.8 percent in revenue. The President needs to show us where he is going to be able to come up with the kind of revenue to match the spending. The President, we suspect, if past is prologue, is going to identify a number of domestic programs; but all told those domestic programs, if we would eliminate all of them with the exception of the defense budget, they do not equal the amount of the annual deficits. So we need some clear plans on how we are going to reduce this deficit, hopefully through a PAYGO plan that requires offsets against tax cuts as well as spending increases. But I want to emphasize particularly the Social Security program. The President is going to suggest it is in crisis. Mr. Speaker, it is not in crisis. In fact, he needs to reassure the American people that there is plenty of money currently in the Social Security system to take us out at least to the year 2052, according to the Congressional Budget Office; and there is enough to provide 73 percent of the benefits for another 40-plus years. Right now we have about $1.7 trillion in reserves. That amount is going to go up by hundreds of billions each year so that we will have over $4 trillion in reserves by 2015. By 2018 it starts to tip as my generation, the baby boom generation, starts to retire, and then we need to make some plans for the future. But let me suggest that the tax cuts that we have enacted in 2001 and 2003 total 2 percent of the gross domestic product. The Social Security system needs only 4/10 of 1 percent to cover the shortfall for the next 75 years. Even the taxes just on the top 1 percent are 6/10 of 1 percent more than we need to cover the Social Security shortfall. That is where the emphasis needs to be. We trust that the President will provide that kind of leadership this evening.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``No Attainment--No Trade bill.'' This legislation amends the Clean Air Act to prohibit powerplants and other major point sources of nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution that are in an ozone non-attainment area from participating in EPA's emission trading program. In 1990 Congress passed amendments to the Clean Air Act to deal with the issue of acid rain deposition. Harmful acid rain was destroying our buildings, personal property and turning freshwater lakes into dead zones. The new law established an innovative emission trading program to reduce the precursors of acid rain, harmful nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxides emitted by coal-burning powerplants and major industrial boilers. Since its establishment, the trading program has worked extremely well, better than even proponents of the 1990 amendment to the Clean Air Act ever expected. While nitrogen and sulphur dioxides have been reduced, and reduced by millions of tons, an unanticipated new wrinkle has emerged as States and localities work to reduce urban smog and bring ozone non-attainment areas into compliance with other requirements in the Clean Air Act. States and localities are bumping into the emission trading program for nitrogen oxides. Not only are nitrogen oxides the precursors of acid rain, they also mix with hydro-carbons and form unhealthy ground level ozone. Giving power plants in an ozone non-attainment area the authority to buy a credit from elsewhere and avoid nitrogen oxide reductions may help EPA meet its national acid rain reduction goals, but it can frustrate state and local efforts to lower ozone and urban smog and be in compliance with the Clean Air Act. I speak from experience. Just across the Potomac River in Alexandria we have a power plant operated by Mirant that was in violation of its operating permit. Aptly named the ``Potomac River Plant'', the coal-fired facility was built in 1949. Because it was approaching the end of its useful life expectancy, Congress agreed to exempt it and other older plants from the tougher modern emission requirements under the Clean Air Act. The exemption was probably a mistake. Unfortunately, too many utilities found it cheaper to keep these antiquated and dirty plants operating beyond their useful life than replace them with costlier but cleaner power plants. Had this region replaced all of exempt power plants with modern facilities, this region might be in compliance with the Clean Air Act ozone standards. Instead, this region has had greater challenge to bring this region into compliance and imposed only modest emission reductions on the Potomac River Plant. This attainment plan faced a serious setback during the summer of 2003 when the Potomac River Plant violated its clean air emission limits by more than 1,000 tons of nitrogen oxide, double the tonnage allowed under its permit. Initially, Mirant claimed it could come into compliance by purchasing credits of emission reductions from sources elsewhere, outside this region, to meet its emission reduction goal. ``Not so,'' said the Commonwealth of Virginia. The state's position, however, was on less than firm legal ground and it took extensive enforcement action and the threat of a state- initiated lawsuit before an alternative remedy was agreed upon. I am pleased that the state held firm and was able to reach a settlement, that while not ideal, will reduce emissions at the Potomac River Plant and the other three local coal-fired plants operated by Mirant. The agreement will contribute substantially to reduce NOx emissions throughout the metropolitan Washington, D.C. region and bring it into compliance with the Clean Air Act. The legislation I am reintroducing today, however, is still necessary. It gives states the clear legal authority they need and discourages power plants from challenging state ozone implementation plans in court. This legislation will give other states the authority they need to block power plants in a non-attainment area from engaging in NOx emission trading and avoiding their responsibility to reduce ozone and urban smog. It makes no sense, to force this region, or the jurisdictions of any ozone non-attainment area, to rachet down nitrogen oxides from other sources, beyond what may be necessary, simply because a few large sources are able to buy their way out of compliance. It isn't fair, and it is not in anyone's best interest to do so. My legislation puts an end to it. It deserves consideration.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday, our country lost two beloved public servants. Representative Robert T. Matsui and former Representative Shirley Chisholm leave us behind, but our national consciousness will never forget their considerable contributions to pursuing equality and social justice for all Americans. Representatives Matsui and Chisholm dedicated so much of themselves to others, and the outpouring of support demonstrates the deep impact each had on the lives of others. Both leaders rose from humble beginnings to the heights of Congress. Representative Matsui, one of the thousands of Japanese Americans taken to an internment camp during World War II, became an influential member on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. His passion for social justice shaped the core of his being, reverberating through his promotion of adequate job training, equal access to health care coverage for children, and the preservation of Social Security for our nation's seniors and disabled citizens. In 1988, he helped win restitution from the U.S. Government for the internment program that negatively affected many surviving Japanese Americans. Representative Chisholm too overcame great obstacles. As the product of the working neighborhoods of Brooklyn, Shirley Chisholm became the first African American woman elected to Congress in 1968. Her advocacy on civil rights issues, particularly women's rights, was unparalleled as she reached out beyond her local constituency to all Americans. Never willing to allow America to mire in the status quo, Representative Chisholm again broke new ground by offering herself as the first woman to be considered for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1972. Though I never had the honor of serving with Representative Chisholm, her legacy echoes throughout the halls of Congress. I witness her strength in my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, which she helped establish in 1969. I hear her voice in our continued pleas for justice in underserved communities. And I see her focus and passion in the eyes of American children who won't accept discrimination or barriers to opportunity. Connected by the common bond of their love for humanity, Representatives Matsui and Chisholm treaded down unmarked paths with determination, fortitude, and notable grace. As a generation of civil rights activists move into the twilight of their advocacy, we must honor their work by passing along their vision for what we our country can still become, a land of equality and opportunity for all Americans. Though we have lost these dear friends too soon, we continue to be led by their unmistakable footprints.