Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for yielding me this time. I do feel motivated to respond to my friend from Iowa's comments. I am sure it was not he that suggested there is hypocrisy on our side, but I want to make the record clear, because 2 weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats voted 187 to 10 in favor of a fully paid-for marriage penalty tax bill. Last week Democrats voted 196 to 5 in favor of a fully paid-for alternative minimum tax relief bill. The only way you got us to vote for those tax cuts was after you rejected our very aggressive efforts to pay for those. You recall we got that vote, we took it to a vote, and overwhelmingly the Democrats voted to pay for those tax cuts, and we only voted otherwise after you rejected our ability to pay for them. But I need to remind my good friend whom I have served with now for several years on the Committee on the Budget that in 1997, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) voted for pay-go as applied to tax cuts. In fact, in 1997, the gentleman voted twice along with virtually all of the House Republicans for pay-go to apply to tax cuts. So when he suggests that we are acting inconsistently, and we would not use the word ``hypocritically,'' but I do think ``inconsistently'' is a proper term when it is applied to the facts of the matter, and again in 1999, the gentleman will recall the Nussle-Cardin budget process bill which required that we have on-budget balancing for tax cuts. Now, today what we are trying to do is to behave responsibly, fiscally responsibly, because we are looking at the facts, not at any far-flown projections. We are looking at the facts. And the facts tell us that after President Clinton's balanced budget amendment, which passed without any Republican votes, we actually turned our backs on deficit spending, got all the way up to the point where we had a surplus, the green, of course, which the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), I guess it appears, perhaps was intimidated by some of these colors because they are in stark contrast to some of the rhetoric we have been hearing. This is the fact: During the Clinton administration, there had been a trajectory, right up to surplus, change of administrations, and look what this policy has done all the way down. I mean one would not want a ski slope that steep. The point is that our policy worked, and it is because we had pay-go applied to spending and to tax cuts. What we have here, clearly, if you want to stop spending, stop the spending. We are saying stop both. If you are not willing to stop the spending, and you obviously have not been, because once the Bush administration came in, there goes the spending on an upward trajectory and there goes the revenue on a downward trajectory. The problem is this is not sustainable. You say that this is going to balance out, but the fact is it has not. And we have to look at the reality, the real experience. These policies are not working. If you want to cut spending, cut spending and then we can work with you. But right now the reality is unless we apply pay-go to tax cuts as well as spending, this line of deficit is going to continue to decline because we will not have the revenues to pay for the spending that you insist on, and that spending clearly has been going up in an unrestrained fashion.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I think he needs to do a little research on that.

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I think I did. Does the gentleman have the names?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia and I rise today to commemorate the 40 anniversary of Reston, Virginia and the 90th birthday of its legendary founder, Robert E. Simon, Jr. Bob Simon grew up in New York immersed in his family's thriving real estate business, Hercer Corp. He attended Harvard University, and upon the passing of his father in 1935, took over the family business. While running Hercer Corp., Simon escaped the city by residing in Syosset, a suburb of Long Island. There he grew to value a lifestyle in which one could live, work, and play in the same desirable community. In 1961, an offer for 6,750 lush acres 18 miles west of Washington, DC, caught Simon's attention. He inspected the land, instantly fell in love, and invested in the rolling green hills of Fairfax County. Simon sought to create a community to embody his ideals; he envisioned a well-rounded, self-sufficient community that respected the dignity of the individual and preserved the land's natural beauty. He launched his development project at a time when the Commonwealth of Virginia still was segregated; nonetheless, Simon bravely fought for a community in which people of all backgrounds could live peacefully together. He put Dr. Martin Luther King's principles to practice and always will be remembered for his commitment to integration. Many investors turned away from Simon's concept, yet Gulf Oil accepted, providing critical resources and support for the project. After securing funding, Simon worked closely with noted planners, architects, and environmentalists to transform his vision into a reality. Perhaps most notable was his innovative notion of clustered housing, leaving open land and improving the appearance and quality of the area. Simon's development team and those that succeeded them were able to realize his dream community, aptly naming it Reston, using the founder's initials and the English suffix for town. As Reston developed, numerous organizations such as the United States Geological Survey relocated to the area, bringing much needed employment and residents. In 1990, development began on the Reston Town Center, which produced a lasting, positive impact on the community. Today, over 58,000 call 11.5 square mile Reston home. Reston has attracted national and worldwide recognition as one of the ``best places to live,'' truly surpassing all expectations. Forty years ago Simon had a dream, and it appears as though this dream has come true. As Simon intended, Reston has become a thriving residential, commercial, industrial, cultural, and civic center where urban seamlessly meets rural. Mr. Speaker, in closing, we would like to congratulate Reston on 40 years of success and wish its residents the best of luck in the many years to come. We ask that our colleagues join us in applauding this notable accomplishment and in wishing Bob Simon a happy celebration of Reston's success and his 90th birthday.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for his previous statement, as well as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for his statement and his initiative in introducing this with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and the leader of our caucus for his statement. This is a very important issue, not just to those who represent large numbers of Federal employees but to the entire American people. We are talking about adequately compensating those who serve, who serve all of the interests of all of the American public. At no time when we introduced this resolution or in the budget resolution have we ever suggested that the military should only get their pay increase if civilians get their pay increase. That is a total mischaracterization by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer). That is not the case. But we do want to make the case that there are a great many civilian employees serving their country in a dedicated, brave way as well. Just a couple of weeks ago, two DOD civilian employees were killed in what the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad called ``a targeted act of terrorism.'' There were hundreds of Federal civilian employees killed in a targeted act of terrorism in Oklahoma. The FBI, the CIA, the whole Department of Homeland Security, we can raise up the stature of people who are willing to put their lives on the line; but we can also point to all those clerks and managers and accountants and all the people who make the government run. It is so easy to take it for granted because we have always had the most professional civil service with the highest integrity of any civil service in the world, and we take it for granted. But we are not going to be able to if we do not act responsibly here. Health insurance premiums have been going up by double digits for the last several years. If we restrict Federal civilian employees to 1\1/2\ percent, their take-home pay is likely to be even less than it was last year. We heard from the assistant secretary for Army Acquisitions. This is not a function that clearly should be contracted out. Army Acquisitions. He told us about the fact that in the last 10 years, the number of civilian employees working for the Army has declined from 100,000 to 50,000; and they have doubled their workload. They have twice as much work to do. But he shared with us his very deep concern, his very deep concern, that over the next 2 years half of that workforce is eligible for retirement. What happens then? These are dedicated professional employees. This is a very important issue for all the people of this country. We as the people that the executive branch works for, we make the laws. We tell them what their priorities are. And the American people, who depend upon them for all their Social Security checks, their Medicare benefits, all of the various programs that have an enormous, profound impact on their lives, these people have to know that they are appreciated, they are respected. And how do we do that? More than words. We have to do that by giving them the level of compensation they are entitled to. That is what this is about. It is not a matter of talking the talk. We walk the walk by showing them that we appreciate what they do day in and day out. I appreciate the gentleman for introducing this resolution, and let us get it passed.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek). (Mr. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my colleague, friend, and leader on the Committee on the Budget for yielding me the time. We are going to focus on homeland security; but before we do that, I have to expose an issue of hypocrisy that, as much as anything, is a compelling reason to vote for the Democratic budget rather than the Republican budget. Let me explain what I mean. Most military retirees die before their spouses; and to deal with this situation, they pay extra money in for what is called spousal benefits. With the Federal civilian retiree system, retirees' spouses get 55 percent of their pay. For military retirees as long as they live, they are going to get their full annuity. But there is an anomaly, an injustice in the current system for military retirees' spouses, and that is as soon as they turn 62 years of age, their benefit drops from 55 percent to 35 percent of their breadwinner's benefits. And thus for all that money that a spouse paid into the system survivors get very little out of it because Social Security offsets it. This Democratic budget fixes that injustice. Let me tell the Members why it is such a hypocrisy in this Republican budget. 272 Members of this House have signed this bill, cosponsored this bill, including 12 Republicans on the Committee on the Budget; and when they were given an opportunity to rectify this injustice, they voted ``no.'' They get the credit for cosponsoring the bill, and yet they vote not to provide any money. That is as compelling a reason as any to vote for this responsible budget, rather than the Republican alternative that is before us today. Mr. Chairman, now let me move on to homeland security. We have heard a whole lot of rhetoric about homeland security. We are listening to it on television in both cloak rooms; the American public is thinking about what did we do before 9-11 that could have been done better. What preparations might we have made that we did not? And there is a whole lot of blaming, a whole lot of finger pointing as to who was responsible. People are pointing to people in the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. But one of the things that most of them agree upon is that there probably is going to be another terrorist attack leveled at Americans within our borders, and so there is probably going to be another commission looking back on what did the Congress and the executive branch do to protect American citizens. We are not going to be able to ensure everyone's safety, but there are certain things we need to do. Port security is one of them. What do we do with our port security? We cut the money. And, in fact, this budget, the Republican budget, cuts it even below the President's budget, cuts out 63 percent of port security grants. We are going to hear from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) in a few minutes on port security because he represents the largest port on the east coast. But we know we are vulnerable. When we were attacked in New York City, at the Pentagon, who responded? They were not homeland security Federal employees. They were what we call first responders. They were the local police, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, all of the people that our communities count upon every day; but in a terrorist attack, they are the first line of response. So what does this budget do? It cuts $2.3 billion from those first responders. And then we have the gall to say that this budget responds to our homeland security needs. It does not. The Democratic alternative does. It restores that essential funding. We are going to hear from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), who is the ranking Democrat on the Select Committee on Homeland Security. We are going to hear from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) on port security. We are going to hear from the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) on first responders. We are going to tell the Members what this country needs to do to protect its citizens. We are going to start with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who represents the largest port on the east coast. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price). (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, our point is that this is a deficient budget. We know this country is a target of terrorists. We do not know when we are going to be attacked, but most of the experts say we will be. They are telling us, protect your ports. So what have we done? We cut 63 percent of the budget for port security. Port security are the things that provide fencing, surveillance technologies, efforts to prevent access to docks and other port facilities. That is where we need to be putting our money. And to save $79 million, take it out of port security for tax cuts, is that an American priority? I do not think so. To cut firefighters assistance by one-third? You are going to tell the firefighters around this country, who know they are going to be the first responders if there is an attack, we are going to pull the rug out from under you, cut your funding by one-third? Unbelievable. And then to eliminate the COPS program, take 100,000 police officers from our local public safety agencies? All over the country jurisdictions are going to suffer by eliminating the COPS program. And then we are going to virtually eliminate the Byrne Grants for local law enforcement? What kind of a budget is this? We are supposed to be listening to our constituents, putting in the money that addresses their priorities. These are their priorities. And you refuse to fund them so that you can pay for your tax cuts for the wealthiest, least needy Americans.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I respond because the chairman of the committee suggested that this is about a political insurance policy. Political insurance policy? We are trying to find the money for an insurance policy to protect the lives of American citizens. Let me remind the gentleman that in his budget, as to interoperable communication grants for local law enforcement, $85 million last year, zero this year. Metropolitan medical response teams, $50 million last year, zero this year. Urban search and rescue grants, $60 million last year, zero this year. The COPS program was cut by $600 million. Go down the list. We are talking about taking money away from insuring the lives of our citizens. Put this money back where it belongs.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution to acknowledge 125 years of reliable, timely, and objective science that illustrates and enhances our understanding of the Earth, and serves the important needs of individuals and communities across this great land. The United States Geological Survey has an outstanding history of public service and scientific breakthroughs. It has been at the forefront of advances in our understanding of the Earth, its processes, and its resources. Scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey pioneered hydrologic techniques for gauging the impact of floods and modeling the flow of complex ground-water systems. The astronauts who landed on the Moon in 1969 were trained in geology by the USGS. Innovative ventures with the private sector have given the world access to digital images of neighborhoods and communities in one of the largest data sets ever made available online. Modern-day understanding of the formation and location of energy and mineral resource deposits is rooted in fundamental scientific breakthroughs by USGS scientists. Their biologists revolutionized thinking about managing wildlife resources, providing a sound scientific basis that lets waterfowl conservation and recreational hunting work in tandem as adaptive management, not as conflicting interests. Advances in seismology are making early warnings of earthquakes a reality that will give the needed alert time to save lives. The future of the global community presents infinite opportunities for the science of the USGS to continue to make substantive and life-enhancing contributions to the betterment of the nation and the world. I congratulate the United States Geological Survey on its 125th anniversary. By commemorating this date, I hope we will come to recognize the crucial services that this institution continues to provide this nation. The United States Geological Survey is a vital Federal science agency that is headquartered in my District in Northern Virginia; however, Members should know that this agency has an important presence in every state of the union. How has 125 years of independent science benefited our nation? It has given us an extensive record of our land and resources, which allows us to realize and track the changes in our land, water, and wildfire. It has provided a wealth of long-term data and research, which continues to serve thousands of government agencies, companies, non-profit organizations, recreational groups, and individual Americans. And it has given us scientific expertise and understanding that we can count on to be accurate and up to date. Since its inception, the United States Geological Survey has become the premier science organization for the nation, covering all of the natural science disciplines (biology, geography, geology, and hydrology) in every state. This expansive coverage provides us with the comprehensive information we need to tackle many complicated issues in many geographical areas. As an unbiased science agency, the United States Geological Survey often serves the needs of the nation behind the scenes. Whether it's research on windborne dusts, mercury contamination, or West Nile Virus used to protect public health; or natural hazards assessments used to ensure public safety; or the energy and mineral resources, water and biological information, and geologic mapping and geospatial information used to serve our economy, for 125 years, the United States Geological Survey has provided the science that serves as the basis for our most important decisions. It's time we congratulated those whose labor provides us with the information we need to manage our resources and safeguard society. I am delighted to have this opportunity to bring attention to the work of the United States Geological Survey and showcase its remarkable history. I urge you to support this resolution, thereby confirming our appreciation for their ongoing work that has served the health, safety, and prosperity of the United States for 125 years. In addition to Congressman James P. Moran, the following members are original sponsors of the House Resolution Congratulating the United States Geological Survey on its 125th Anniversary: Barbara Cubin, Tom Davis, Norm Dicks, Anna G. Eshoo, Ron Kind, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Zoe Lofgren, Ralph Regula, Nick Smith, Bill Young, and Sherwood Boehlert. Resolution Whereas March 3, 2004 will mark the 125th Anniversary of the establishment of the United States Geological Survey; Whereas the United States Geological Survey has become the Nation's premiere earth and biological science agency; Whereas during its 125-year history, the United States Geological Survey has been the birthplace of a number of other Federal agencies, including the Reclamation Service (later renamed the Bureau of Reclamation) in 1902, the Forest Service in 1905, the United States Bureau of Mines in 1910, the Grazing Service (later renamed the Bureau of Land Management) in 1934, and the Minerals Management Service in 1982; Whereas the United States Geological Survey has been a widely respected source of relevant and objective science to address the Nation's diverse natural resource issues; Whereas the United States Geological Survey continues to serve the Nation as an independent fact-finding agency that collects, monitors, analyzes, and provides scientific information and understanding about natural resource conditions, issues, and problems; Whereas a hallmark value of the United States Geological Survey to the Nation is its ability to carry out studies on a national scale and to sustain long-term monitoring and assessment of natural hazards and natural resource conditions; Whereas the United States Geological Survey is an agency of the Federal Government with no regulatory or land management responsibilities and is thus a trusted entity to provide impartial science that serves the needs of the Nation; and Whereas the United States Geological Survey has a scientific presence in every State and Territory of the United States and serves the Nation's extensive and diverse needs for objective scientific knowledge and understanding: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- (1) congratulates the United States Geological Survey on its 125th anniversary; and (2) expresses strong support for the United States Geological Survey as it serves the Nation by providing timely, relevant, and objective scientific in formation which helps to describe and understand the Earth, minimize the loss of life and property from natural disasters, manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources, and enhance and protect the quality of life of all Americans.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution to acknowledge 125 years of reliable, timely, and objective science that illustrates and enhances our understanding of the Earth, and serves the important needs of individuals and communities across this great land. The United States Geological Survey has an outstanding history of public service and scientific breakthroughs. It has been at the forefront of advances in our understanding of the Earth, its processes, and its resources. Scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey pioneered hydrologic techniques for gauging the impact of floods and modeling the flow of complex ground-water systems. The astronauts who landed on the Moon in 1969 were trained in geology by the USGS. Innovative ventures with the private sector have given the world access to digital images of neighborhoods and communities in one of the largest data sets ever made available online. Modern-day understanding of the formation and location of energy and mineral resource deposits is rooted in fundamental scientific breakthroughs by USGS scientists. Their biologists revolutionized thinking about managing wildlife resources, providing a sound scientific basis that lets waterfowl conservation and recreational hunting work in tandem as adaptive management, not as conflicting interests. Advances in seismology are making early warnings of earthquakes a reality that will give the needed alert time to save lives. The future of the global community presents infinite opportunities for the science of the USGS to continue to make substantive and life-enhancing contributions to the betterment of the nation and the world. I congratulate the United States Geological Survey on its 125th anniversary. By commemorating this date, I hope we will come to recognize the crucial services that this institution continues to provide this nation. The United States Geological Survey is a vital Federal science agency that is headquartered in my District in Northern Virginia; however, Members should know that this agency has an important presence in every state of the union. How has 125 years of independent science benefitted our nation? It has given us an extensive record of our land and resources, which allows us to realize and track the changes in our land, water, and wildlife. It has provided a wealth of long-term data and research, which continues to serve thousands of government agencies, companies, non-profit organizations, recreational groups, and individual Americans. And it has given us scientific expertise and understanding that we can count on to be accurate and up to date. Since its inception, the United States Geological Survey has become the premier science organization for the nation, covering all of the natural science disciplines (biology, geography, geology, and hydrology) in every state. This expansive coverage provides us with the comprehensive information we need to tackle many complicated issues in many geographical areas. As an unbiased science agency, the United States Geological Survey often serves the needs of the nation behind the scenes. Whether it's research on windborne dusts, mercury contamination, or West Nile Virus used to protect public health; or natural hazards assessments used to ensure public safety; or the energy and mineral resources, water and biological information, and geologic mapping and geospatial information used to serve our economy, for 125 years, the United States Geological Survey has provided the science that serves as the basis for our most important decisions. It's time we congratulated those whose labor provides us with the information we need to manage our resources and safeguard society. I am delighted to have this opportunity to bring attention to the work of the United States Geological Survey and showcase its remarkable history. I urge you to support this resolution, thereby confirming our appreciation for their ongoing work that has served the health, safety, and prosperity of the United States for 125 years. Resolution Whereas March 3, 2004 will mark the 125th Anniversary of the establishment of the United States Geological Survey; Whereas the United States Geological Survey has become the Nation's premiere earth and biological science agency; Whereas during its 125-year history, the United States Geological Survey has been the birthplace of a number of other Federal agencies, including the Reclamation Service (later renamed the Bureau of Reclamation) in 1902, the Forest Service in 1905, the United States Bureau of Mines in 1910, the Grazing Service (later renamed the Bureau of Land Management) in 1934, and the Minerals Management Service in 1982; Whereas the United States Geological Survey has been a widely respected source of relevant and objective science to address the Nation's diverse natural resource issues; Whereas the United States Geological Survey continues to serve the Nation as an independent fact-finding agency that collects, monitors, analyzes, and provides scientific information and understanding about natural resource conditions, issues, and problems; Whereas a hallmark value of the United States Geological Survey to the Nation is its ability to carry out studies on a national scale and to sustain long-term monitoring and assessment of natural hazards and natural resource conditions; Whereas the United States Geological Survey is an agency of the Federal Government with no regulatory or land management responsibilities and is thus a trusted entity to provide impartial science that serves the needs of the Nation; and Whereas the United States Geological Survey has a scientific presence in every State and Territory of the United States and serves the Nation's extensive and diverse needs for objective scientific knowledge and understanding: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- (1) congratulates the United States Geological Survey on its 125th anniversary; and (2) expresses strong support for the United States Geological Survey as it serves the Nation by providing timely, relevant, and objective scientific information which helps to describe and understand the Earth, minimize the loss of life and property from natural disasters, manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources, and enhance and protect the quality of life of all Americans. In addition to Congressman James P. Moran, the following members are original sponsors of the House Resolution Congratulating the United States Geological Survey on its 125th Anniversary: Barbara Cubin, Tom Davis, Norm Dicks, Anna G. Eshoo, Ron Kind, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Zoe Lofgren, Ralph Regula, Nick Smith, Bill Young, and Sherwood Boehlert.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act (H.R. 1561). This legislation builds upon a strong foundation first established back on April 5, 1790, when the first patent statute was passed by the Congress of the 12 United States. That's right, we had our first patent law before Rhode Island became our 13th State. At the time, the first law directed the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War and the Attorney General to determine if they, or any two of them thought ``the invention or discovery sufficiently useful and important'' to merit a patent. A hefty fee between $4 and $5 was collected to process and approve each patent petition. Interestingly, the payment did not go to the newly created Federal Government but to a government employee, the Chief Clerk of the Department of State. The funds went to support the patent operations and later financed the construction of the first Patent Office, not to support the general funds of the U.S. Treasury. Today, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, an office that I am proud to say resides in my congressional district, is struggling with an increasingly complex and voluminous workload. Last year, the office received more than 330,000 patent applications and more than 260,000 trademark applications. Patent applications have doubled since 1992. As a result, patent pendency (the amount of time a patent application is pending before a patent is issued) now averages over 2 years and is even longer in more complicated technologies. Without more examiners, average pendency in areas such as computer- related technologies will double to 6 to 8 years in the next few years. This delay is a drag, holding back our economy's full potential, unfairly punishing American businesses and entrepreneurs at a time when intellectual-property-based industries are essential to economic growth. As application processing times grow, the incentives for investment diminish, especially for individuals and small entities with limited resources whose inventions are in greater danger of being counterfeited or pirated. The status quo is a recipe for disaster, and H.R. 1561 represents a well-conceived and bipartisan way out of this dilemma. Without the bill, the backlog of unexamined patents will more than double--from 475,000 today to 1 million by 2008. This legislation will allow the Patent and Trademark Office to implement its 21st Century Strategic Plan by improving productivity, patent quality, and e-government. It will give the agency the revenue it needs to hire 2,900 needed new patent examiners. I support the compromise that was brokered between members of the Judiciary and Appropriations Committees that will give the appropriators the deference they need to set the funding levels, but will provide the authorizers and the patent community the assurances they need to make sure that any additional funds raised through the fees will be spent for their designated purpose. Any balance of funds are to be returned to the patent applicants, and not be spent elsewhere by the Federal Government. Let me also make it clear that while I have some concerns about outsourcing and potential liability issues outsourcing might create, let's recognize that this is just a pilot program with ample opportunity for Congress to exercise appropriate oversight. Whatever civil service jobs might one day be lost by outsourcing will more than be made up by the thousands of jobs this legislation will help create. The Patent and Trademark Office plans to increase its patent examining staff by about 1,000 annually in fiscal years 2005 and 2006, reaching and maintaining a stable level of about 4,500 examiners after that. Mr. Chairman, our future is made more secure through a system that protects the rights of inventors. At the centennial celebration of the U.S. Patent Office in 1890, Commissioner Charles Elliot Mitchell eloquently stated the important decision of our Founding Fathers to provide protections for intellectual property when drafting the Constitution: For who is bold enough to say that the Constitution could have overspread a continent if the growth of invention and inventive achievement had not kept pace with territorial expansion. It is invention which brought the Pacific Ocean to the Alleghanies. It is invention which, fostered, by a single sentence in their immortal work, has made it possible for the flag of one republic to carry more than forty symbolic stars. My colleagues for the sake of this great Nation, modernize the Patent and Trademark Office; support the U.S. Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act of 2003.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the House Committee on the Budget had a hearing yesterday with the Congressional Budget Office. So it was about numbers, and normally numbers are boring and benign, but this laid out a nightmare scenario. When President Bush took office, the Clinton administration, in concert with the Congressional Budget Office, estimated that there would be a surplus over the next 10 years of $5.6 trillion. We now have an estimate for the next 10 years not of a surplus but of a cumulative deficit of $4.8 trillion. What a fiscal reversal! Over $10 trillion. I suppose we do not have to worry much about it because it is really going to be heaped on the backs of our children and grandchildren. We will retire on Medicare and Social Security before we will have to pay this number off. For this fiscal year the Clinton administration had us in line to have a surplus of $400 billion. We now will have a deficit of $477 billion. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a good thing to do. Tax cuts are always a popular thing to do. But somebody, someday is going to have to pay the piper. And I guess we've decided that somebody should be our kids after we retire. This is unfair. It is immoral, and it is irresponsible for this party to be such willing partners to this injustice.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, last week the President made a number of comments about the need to extend and enhance the USA PATRIOT Act during his State of the Union speech. It is with that address to the Nation in mind, that I rise today to insert into the Record a resolution passed by a local jurisdiction in my district. On November 11, 2003, the city of Alexandria, VA, passed a resolution which requests that Congress assess the impact of the USA PATRIOT Act and other Federal antiterrorism efforts. The resolution calls on Congress to repeal provisions of the act, other laws, regulations, policies, and practices that infringe on personal rights, liberties, and due process. I support the community spirit and civic concern that led to the passage of this resolution. I agree with many of the points expressed in the resolution and have been troubled by the interpretation and implementation of a number of the PATRIOT Act's provisions. I look forward to these issues being revisited in the coming year. The American people deserve nothing short of a full and open debate on these issues so greatly affecting civil liberties and the role of government in peoples' personal lives. Resolution No. 2088 Whereas, the Alexandria City Council is committed to upholding the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights; Whereas, the City of Alexandria has a long history of working to obtain and preserve the civil rights and liberties of its residents; Whereas, the City has a diverse and multi-ethnic population, and everyday embraces the richness of community that includes immigrants, whose contributions to the City are vital to its economy, culture and civic character; Whereas, the City has among its residents many who were affected directly and many more who were affected indirectly, by the tragic events of September 11, 2001, both in New York City and at the Pentagon, only a short distance from this Chamber as well as in Somerset County, Pennsylvania; Whereas, this nation's need to respond to those terrible events, and to protect itself from future acts of terrorism, does not diminish the commitment of the City or of its residents, regardless of their personal circumstances, to the Constitutional rights and liberties that are the precious entitlement of all; Whereas, the Alexandria City Council believes there is no inherent conflict between national security and the preservation of liberty--that Americans can be both safe and free; Whereas, the Alexandria City Council is proud of the cooperative work among federal, state and local law enforcement officials to protect the safety of Alexandrians; Whereas, federal, state and local government actions designed to protect the public from terrorist attacks, such as those that occurred on September 11, 2001, must be taken in a rational and deliberative fashion to ensure that any new security measure intended to enhance public safety does not impair constitutional rights or infringe on civil liberties; Whereas, federal laws, regulations, policies, and practices adopted since September 11, 2001, including provisions of Public Law 107-56 (the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act or ``USA PATRIOT'' Act), and related Executive Orders, regulations and actions: (a) authorize the indefinite incarceration of non-citizens to solitary confinement, based upon mere suspicion, without being charged with any crime, without counsel, and without a right to be heard; (b) authorize the indefinite incarceration of citizens designated by the President based unspecified standards as ``enemy combatants'' to solitary confinement, without being charged with a crime, without counsel, and without a right to be heard; (c) limit the traditional authority of the federal courts to curb law enforcement abuses including electronic surveillance; (d) limit judicial oversight of federal ``sneak and peek'' searches and eliminate timely notice to the person who is the subject of the search that his or her property has been searched; (e) grant broad governmental access to personal medical, financial, library, and educational records without judicial oversight; (f) inhibit free speech and free association by defining any person or group as a terrorist, or an act as terrorism, without articulating the basis for the characterization or giving the person or group so characterized a right to be heard; (g) encourage local and state law enforcement personnel to enforce federal immigration laws, and to use those laws as a pretext for detention of, and denial of due process to, persons who are not reasonably suspected of criminal behavior; (h) permit government surveillance of public meetings, including religious services, Internet chat rooms, holiday gatherings, and political rallies without judicial oversight; Whereas, draft federal legislation, known as the Domestic Security Enhancement Act (``DSEA'' or ``Patriot II''), contains many new and sweeping provisions that further expand government surveillance authority, increase government secrecy, reduce governmental accountability, erode the separation of powers essential for Constitutional checks and balances, and diminish the right of all persons to the due process of law guaranteed by the Constitution: Therefore, be it Resolved, That the Alexandria City Council: 1. Affirms its strong support for fundamental constitutional rights and its opposition to federal measures that infringe on civil liberties; 2. Affirms its strong support for the rights of immigrants and opposes measures that single out individuals for legal scrutiny or enforcement activity based solely on their country of origin; 3. Directs the Police Department of the City of Alexandria to ensure that it protects the constitutional rights of Alexandria residents, that it maintains a relationship of trust with those it is sworn to serve and protect, and that it continues to abide by the Alexandria Police Department directives that prohibit racial profiling or collecting information not reasonably related to suspicion of criminal behavior; 4. Directs public libraries in the City to promote unfettered access to information, which is the collective heritage of humanity and which is a fundamental human right, and to protect freedom of inquiry, universally recognized as a driving force for the progression of civilization itself, by: (a) posting this notice to library users ``WARNING: Under Section 215 of the Federal ``USA PATRIOT'' Act (Public Law 107-56), records of the books and other materials you borrow may be obtained by federal agents. That federal law prohibits librarians from informing you if records about you have been requested or obtained by federal agents. Questions about this policy should be directed to: Attorney General John Ashcroft, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530,'' (b) ensuring there is regular destruction of records that identify a book borrower after the book is returned, or that identify the name of an Internet user after use; 5. Recommends that local businesses and institutions in the City, and in particular booksellers, notify consumers that purchase records are subject to disclosure to federal law enforcement agencies; 6. Directs the City Manager to ensure that, to the extent legally possible, no City resources--including law enforcement funds and educational administrative resources-- may be used for unconstitutional activities, including but not limited to monitoring the exercise by political and religious groups of their First Amendment rights of expression, association, assembly or petition, or obtaining library, bookstore or website activity records without proper authorization and without notice to the subjects of the records; 7. Directs the Clerk of Council to: (a) send a copy of this Resolution to Governor Warner with a letter urging him to ensure that state anti-terrorism laws and policies be implemented in a manner that does not infringe on personal rights, liberties and due process; and (b) send a copy of this Resolution to Senators Warner and Allen, and Congressman Moran, accompanied by a letter asking that the resolution be read into the record, on the floor, and urging Congress to assess the impact of the ``USA PATRIOT'' Act and federal anti-terrorism efforts; to work to repeal provisions of the ``USA PATRIOT'' Act and other laws, regulations, policies and practices that infringe on personal rights, liberties and due process; and to ensure that no provision of the ``USA PATRIOT'' Act originally intended to expire remains in effect past its sunset date; and be it further Resolved, That the provisions of this Resolution shall be severable, and that if any phrase, clause, sentence, or provision of this Resolution is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to the Constitutions of the United States or of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the validity of the remainder of this Resolution shall not be affected thereby.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Fairfax County Branch of the NAACP for their effort to honor one of our nation's most treasured heroes, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Together with members from throughout our community, the Fairfax County NAACP has used the anniversary of Dr. King's birthday to commemorate the life and legacy of this great American. The Fairfax County NAACP has used the teachings and life of Dr. King as inspiration to end the hatred of racism throughout the county and to celebrate the diversity that is common to this vibrant community. Through their efforts they have helped those who have faced discrimination find justice and have encouraged everyone to envision a world without intolerance. It is important that we honor and celebrate the accomplishments of Dr. King and how he helped our nation deal with the hatred that had threatened to destroy us. By coming together to celebrate his birthday we are honoring a man who gave our nation a new hope that we can all live together. I am certain the celebration that the Fairfax County NAACP is hosting will do justice to the legacy of this great man. However, we must celebrate what Dr. King taught us not just on his birthday, but every day. Every American should take the time to help their neighbor, enlighten a friend whose mind has been clouded with prejudice, and commit their lives to making the United States the true beacon of justice in the world. We must continue to live by the words of Martin Luther King and ``make justice a reality for all of God's children.'' We must all strive to achieve the dream that Dr. King imagined for his children, so that our children's children will live in a world free from racism, discrimination and hatred. I applaud the Fairfax County NAACP for hosting this commemoration of Dr. King's life, a life cut short, but whose ideas, dreams and hopes continue to inspire our lives every day. I am pleased that they are using this opportunity to bring a beacon of light and hope to our community and share the legacy of Dr. King.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate International Human Rights Day which is to be observed on the 10th of December. Human Rights Day celebrates the day of December 10, 1948 when the United Nations General Assembly adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the standard for equal and inalienable rights for all mankind. This historic document has been the foundation for freedom, justice, and equality around the world. Sadly, 55 years since its inception, human rights abuses are still endemic. I would like to draw attention to the widespread problem of human trafficking. The trafficking of persons is a modern-day form of slavery, involving victims who are typically forced, defrauded or coerced into sexual or labor exploitation. It is the fastest growing criminal enterprise, occurring around the world and in individual countries. Annually, nearly one million people, mostly women and children, are trafficked worldwide, including 50,000 persons into the United States. The fact of the matter is that the violent subjugation and exploitation of women and girls is on-going and not enough is being done by governments to adequately address it. Take for example Skopje, Macedonia. In a marketplace, women are forced to walk around a stage naked while brothel owners point their fingers to make a selection. Women are sold like cattle and they are treated like slaves. In Krong Koh Kong, Cambodia, 14 year old girls stand outside of a row of shacks where they charge the equivalent of $2 or $3 dollars for sex, half of which goes to their pimps. These girls, many of whom have AIDS, are discarded when they become too sick to continue working. Around the world, women and girls are sold as slaves and are forced to engage in unprotected sex because clients offer more money for such acts. These women have no control over their lives, their health, or their futures. Trafficking victims in the sex industry are exposed to HIV/AIDS, at much higher rates than the general population with no access to medical care. The fear of infection of AIDS among customers has driven traffickers to recruit younger girls, erroneously perceived to be too young to have been infected. The State Department's annual Trafficking in Persons Report classifies countries that allow human trafficking into three tiers. Some have observed that the United States has been soft on certain Asian countries thought to be lax on trafficking, such as Indonesia, the Philippines, India, and Thailand. But because these countries are allies in the war on terror, they may have been given a pass. Mr. Speaker, in commemoration of Human Rights Day, I call upon governments around the world and the government of the United States to renew their commitment to combating this form of modern-day slavery. Eliminating this transnational criminal activity is one of the greatest challenges of our time. We must dedicate our efforts to the prevention of human trafficking, protection of victims, and prosecution of traffickers. To deny a person their right to freedom is the greatest affront to the ideals established 55 years ago set forth by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We can and must do better. Universal Declaration of Human Rights On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and ``to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories.''

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring the body's attention to another provision in this omnibus appropriations bill. I know there are several that are objectionable, and this one may not get any further discussion, but I think it merits it. There is a provision in this bill that says that all of the records of firearm purchases have to be destroyed within 24 hours. Now, we know that there have been more than 3,500 firearms purchased by people who should not have purchased them, and that the FBI has been able to retrieve those guns because the records are currently kept for 90 days. They retrieve them if the person that purchased it is a fugitive, is a felon, has a history of serious mental illness, is an illegal alien, any number of reasons that they should not be purchasing guns, lawfully, in the United States. So 3,500 guns have been retrieved because we have kept the records available for 90 days. Now, they have to be destroyed within 24 hours. Now, the National Rifle Association thinks this is a good thing, but our law enforcement organizations do not. FBI agents will tell us this is very serious, what this bill would do. In fact, the al Qaeda training manual cites the fact that you can go in and buy a gun in the United States, and as long as you have not been a convicted felon in the past, you can buy that and the records will be destroyed. And, in fact, as the Washington Post said in an article last week, that is true, that if a person gets hold of a gun, their records have to be destroyed as a result of this bill. If they are denied, then the records can be pursued. But if they lawfully purchased it, the records are destroyed, which means that we are deliberately tying the hands of law enforcement agencies. Now, is it not appropriate that we be able to consult the list of violent gang members and terrorists when they try to buy a gun? Absolutely, is the answer. Yet, this bill says, within 24 hours, even if it is a holiday, a weekend, even if it is in some rural area where they do not have the resources to check what they need to be able to check, it has to be destroyed within 24 hours. Mr. Speaker, we are going to look back and find this provision as one of the most dangerous that this House has passed, and the most irresponsible and irrational. We should not be doing this. It was another one of these things snuck into the conference report. I strongly urge Members, unless we can take this out, this bill should not be supported in its present form.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Medicare prescription drug benefit conference report that the House is scheduled to consider today. I want to make it clear that I strongly support a Medicare prescription drug benefit for our nation's seniors and am supportive of a universal, affordable, voluntary and guaranteed Medicare prescription benefit for all. Unarguably, the enactment of the Medicare program in 1965 was one of the wisest things Congress has ever done. At that time, there were very few prescription drugs with wide applicability, and that is why Medicare did not cover prescription drugs. In large part, because of Medicare and Social Security, we have raised the life expectancy of our citizens, lifted millions of Americans out of poverty, and vastly increased the quality of life for our nation's senior citizens. Unfortunately, this conference report does not reflect the vision and ideals of Medicare set forth by President Johnson and Congress, and will, if passed and signed into law, harm the 57,000 seniors that reside in my congressional district and millions of other seniors in America. It had been my hope that any expansion of the Medicare program to include a prescription drug benefit would be above partisan politics. We have all heard first-hand from seniors how the high prices of their prescription drugs negatively impact their already limited incomes. This issue which cuts across political lines should be about what's in the collective interest of our nation's seniors. Unfortunately, this debate on one of the most important domestic issues, which not only affects today's seniors, but future generations as well, did not rise above partisan politics or enhance our democratic process. In a decade, 10,000 people a day will turn 65 years old and with the retirement of the Baby Boom generation, America's senior population will almost double. This conference report provides a weak prescription drug benefit for all seniors--regardless of income, and will change the Medicare program as we currently know it, by overpaying private insurance companies to administer this drug benefit, while giving them great latitude in setting premiums, deductibles, and pharmacy choice with little oversight through a premium support system. One of the reasons why I voted against the House version of the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003 (H.R. 1) was that Medicare beneficiaries would pay 20% of their drug costs up to $2,000 and 100% of drug costs from $2,000 to $3,500, while still subjecting them to monthly premiums that would result in a gap of prescription drug coverage for most beneficiaries. The coverage gap that exists in this conference report is even worse. Seniors will pay 100% of costs between $2,250 and $5,100--a gap of $2,800 which will be increased to over $5,000 by the year 2013. I also cannot support a conference report that does nothing to alleviate the high costs of drugs imposed on seniors. This conference report actually prohibits the Secretary of the Health and Human Services from negotiating lower drug prices with the bargaining clout of the 40 million Medicare beneficiaries as well as the importation of drugs from countries where drug prices are lower, except Canada and only if they are certified by the Food and Drug Administration. While I am pleased that this Congress has finally addressed the issue of reimbursement rates for doctors, hospitals, and other important health providers, I am discouraged that this conference report is still a bad deal for our seniors, and the endorsement of this legislation by the AARP, comes into question. The AARP is not recognizing its membership's need and desire for a true Medicare prescription drug benefit without the heavy reliance on the private health insurance industry. It is with great sadness that I will have to vote no on this conference report. My constituents want a legitimate Medicare prescription drug benefit, lower drug prices and better Medicare services. This conference report undermines the Medicare system, and I am afraid, will do more harm in the long run than good in the short term for our seniors.

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 power plants and other major point sources of nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution that are in an ozone nonattainment 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 power plants 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 hydrocarbons and form 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. I speak from experience. Just across the Potomac River in Alexandria we have one power plant operated by Mirant that continues to violate its permit. In fact, this past summer during the ozone season it violated its clean air emission limits by more than 1,000 tons of nitrogen oxide, double the tonnage allowed under its permit. It my understanding that Mirant is trying to get off the hook by purchasing credits of emission reductions from sources elsewhere, outside this region, to meet its emission reduction goal. ``Not so,'' says the Commonwealth of Virginia. The State's position, however, may be on less than firm legal ground. I hope the Commonwealth holds its ground and stands strong, and I have encouraged them to do so. The legislation I am introducing gives them the clear legal authority they need and discourages power plants from challenging State ozone implementation plans in court. I also hope 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 is my understanding that Mirant, the same company operating the plant in Alexandria, has violated its NOx permits at its three coal-fired plants in Maryland. During this summer's ozone season, Chalk Point, Morgantown and Dickerson power plants collectively exceeded their summer NOx permits by more than 3,500 tons. Unlike Virginia, State officials in Maryland appear inclined to let them buy credits through the emission trading program. That's an additional 4,600 tons of nitrogen oxide that entered our air this past summer beyond what Virginia and Maryland agreed Mirant should emit. It makes no sense, to force this region, or the jurisdictions of any ozone nonattainment 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.