Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all of the rhetoric that we are getting on how much the majority likes military families, but they have to put their money where their mouth is. The fact is that that sergeant, that E-6 sergeant who makes less than a third of the tax cuts that you are giving to millionaires, less than a third, he makes $29,000, he did not have a choice about getting combat pay, so he goes over to Iraq. If he stayed in this country, he would have more money in his pocket because he would have been eligible for the child tax credit. If he goes over to Iraq, it is not taxable income, but the reality is, the bottom line is that he suffers. His family gets less money. Mr. Speaker, tell me a better definition of a working-class family standing up for his country than that sergeant over in Iraq. And the other side of the aisle has made him worse off because of their legislation. That is why we need to pass the Senate version.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman very much and would add one last word. This is not a security threat. We know everybody that is on these planes, and they are the last people that would engage in any kind of terrorism. It is a much safer passenger list, I have to say, than the normal population that gets on a commercial airline flight. We don't really know much about them except what they might be carrying in their shoes or something. This is not a security issue; it is an economic issue and an issue of fairness. General aviation needs to be opened. Amendment Offered by Mr. Petri

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in very strong support of this amendment. The interstate highway system was established in the 1950s, and it has served this country very well. The Congress is very proud of what it has done. But transportation has evolved. We have other responsibilities. We need to be concerned about the traffic congestion that we are generating, the deteriorating air quality, the loss of open space, and, as some other of our colleagues have said, an obesity epidemic among our youth. This Enhancement Program is one of the most popular aspects of our entire transportation program, because it encourages communities and individuals to be creative, to take initiative, to convert old, abandoned rail lines to trails. Rails to Trails is exciting. It has given people other opportunities when they might spend much of their weekend in an automobile to go bicycling, jogging, walking along trails. It has done so much across the country. And it is transportation oriented. But most importantly, it is community oriented. That is key. That is really what this is about. Communities have an opportunity to have some input into how the billions of dollars in road projects are used, to enhance their quality of life. At one point, 90 percent of our Nation's schoolchildren walked to school. Today, less than 10 percent do. Many have to take buses or rely on their families or friends to drive, primarily because there are no sidewalks or safe ways to get to school. Building sidewalks is one of the many eligible activities for this Transportation Enhancement Program. If we take away this component, we are going to weaken the ability of local communities and neighborhoods to address their priorities. I also think that we are going to lose an awful lot of important opportunities to beautify our transportation corridors, rehabilitate train stations and other transportation assets, provide safe wildlife crossings, and protect our historic, our scenic, our natural resources. We can do this all for about 1\1/2\ cents per surface transportation dollar. It is important. It is a critical element of a transportation program that is also concerned about congestion, air quality, loss of open space. Just one last thing. Many Members live in northern Virginia, Alexandria and Arlington, for example. If we provided highways to accommodate everybody that wants to drive from outside the Beltway to the inner city of D.C., it would be all asphalt. There would not be any neighborhoods. There would be no grass. What we have to do is to find ways for public transportation to relieve our highways to give people an incentive to ride a bicycle, to find whatever way they can get to work in a way that is healthy, that reduces the amount of congestion, and that enhances our quality of life and the strength of our communities. This program does all that. That is why the Petri-Olver amendment should pass. It has many other sponsors, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has done a great job on this. It is bipartisan. It is important. Let us make sure it continues as part of our transportation program.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland, as well as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf); and I know several of the Senators in this area are supporting this as well. This is terribly important to our economy in the Washington region, but also to the Nation's economy. We have pretty much recovered on the surface of things from 9-11, at least we have rebuilt the Pentagon, we are now functioning as well as we can at National Airport in terms of commercial jets and we are responding to national and international challenges. But general aviation is in the same situation it was when it was closed as a result of the tragedy of September 11, 2001. This is unfair. It is wrong. We have to do something about it. Outside the infrequent use of official government planes, general aviation operations at National Airport are prohibited. There were more than 60,000 business aviation flights a year at National Airport. It was not the kind of mom and pop Cessnas and Piper Cubs that were bringing visitors to Washington to tour the Capitol and the museums; it was business executives, top government officials, and CEOs who need their own aircraft and need the efficiency of an airport close to the city to do their business. This is hurting Washington's economy, and it is devastating a company like Signature Flight Support, which is the sole provider of general aviation services at National Airport. They were generating revenues of $20 million a year. They had hundreds of employees. Those people are out of a job. Signature Flight Support has lost about $3 million, $1 million a year, and it is hemorrhaging money every single day. Under the terms of its lease, it is required to staff and operate National Airport 24 hours a day, 7 days a week regardless of whether there is any demand for its services. For 8 months, the Department of Transportation worked with them. They said that they were going to be able to open the airport, and it encouraged Signature to stay in business. But then on July 19 of 2002, Secretary Mineta informed airport officials that general aviation would remain closed indefinitely for security reasons. They have lost too much money. They have had to lay off too many people, and it is not fair to expect them to maintain Federal Government planes when that is not their job. Their job is to service all of general aviation, and we shouldn't be preventing them from doing their job. This has not gone unnoticed by the House, and I want to thank those on the authorizing committee. There is a provision in the Aviation Reauthorization Act that authorizes funds to help general aviation activities that have been hurt by these security restrictions. With the adoption of the Hoyer amendment, we would be able to fulfill the legislation's intent and actually provide some very needed relief to those businesses that are suffering through no fault of their own. This is a Federal responsibility. We really ought to fund the Hoyer amendment. We ought to get these businesses back on their feet. They have a right to recover from 9-11 too.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my House colleague, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton today, in introducing the ``Metropolitan Washington Regional Transportation Act.'' No one would expect the road system and limited transit service that existed in the 1970s to serve us today. Yet much of the transportation infrastructure in this region was designed and built more than 30 years ago and has already reached the saturation point. A disruption on any single thoroughfare, be it rail or road, can overwhelm other roadways and shut down the entire region. Rush hour conditions in this region are becoming a 24-hour phenomenon. For more than a decade we have suffered some of the worst traffic congestion in the nation. According to the Greater Washington Board of Trade, this increased commuting time and congestion costs each man, woman, and child in the region close to $1,600 for each rush-hour driver in lost time, wasted fuel, and environmental damage. Long commutes and traffic congestion have also become quality-of-life issues to area residents, robbing many families of the one commodity Washingtonians never seem to have enough of--time. Some drivers facing a longer commute have even become a safety hazard as they race recklessly to cut a precious few minutes from their daily commute. For those who lack cars, the distance between employment opportunities and affordable housing has grown more and more difficult to traverse. Our economic prosperity and quality of life hinge on improving our congestion problem. Unfortunately, as we look to the future the traffic situation only grows worse. Even with the increase in Federal funds that Virginia, Maryland and DC will receive under legislation reauthorizing Federal surface transportation programs, ``TEA-21,'' this region will still fall seriously short of meeting the growing demand for transportation improvements. For the period of 1990 through 2020, this region can expect both a 43 percent increase in population and a 43 percent increase in employment. This growth and increased dependency on the automobile is expected to increase, by 79 percent, the number of vehicle miles traveled in the region by 2020. The Board of Trade estimates that transportation spending is expected to fall short of the region's transportation needs by more than $500 million annually. Any solution to current and future congestion demands strategic investment in both our road and mass transit system. It demands better land use and planning decisions and better interjurisdictional cooperation. And it also demands that this region come together and raise additional revenue to finance priority transportation projects that will provide immediate congestion relief. It may not be a popular idea, particularly in light of Northern Virginia's failed attempt to enact a regional sales tax for transportation improvements. I think the key to success, however, is with some healthy Federal incentives that encourage this region to do more. The legislation I am introducing provides a new option to help the metropolitan Washington region more effectively address its transportation needs. It has seven key elements: it turns the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board into a regional transportation authority with the power to issue bonds, receive Federal grants and local funds; it directs the new authority to develop a list of critical congestion relief projects that have not been funded under current and forecasted Federal, State, or local transportation plans; it directs the authority within two years to contract out through the States, local governments or the private sector to build the approved list of projects; it allows tolls on interstate highways for the purposes of building more HOV and new HOT lanes; it grants consent to the metropolitan Washington region jurisdictions to enter into an interstate compact or agreement to create a more permanent authority that would help meet the region's long-term transportation needs; it provides $100 million annually in Federal grants to leverage more State and local funds; and it provides $5 million annually for expanding the network of non-motorized trails within the region. This legislation provides the framework under which regional transportation needs could be addressed. It requires consultation with State and local officials at every level and in an effort to win State support, the legislation preciously guards State control of both the corporation and the authority through veto power. It does not raise anyone's taxes, but it does provide a mechanism or a ``vehicle'' through which the local jurisdictions could coordinate and commit future revenues to finance the construction of specific transportation projects that otherwise will not get built or built anytime soon. The ``Metropolitan Washington Regional Transportation Act'' gives us a choice and helps start a debate on how we should take control and improve our future transportation system and improve our quality of life. Our failure to act and meet our transportation needs will have a much higher cost. The Board of Trade places the cumulative regional economic losses from the failure to meet our transportation needs in the year 2020 at between $70.2 billion to $182 billion. That economic loss includes: a 350 percent or $345 million increase in shipping costs; $1.3 billion to $2.6 billion in higher warehousing and inventory costs; $1,365 per household, per year, higher consumer costs; and more than $1,000 per household, per year, in higher personal travel costs. In the past, leaders from this region have shared a vision and worked together successfully to address important transportation needs, through such institutions as the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board at the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. We need a similar vision to carry us forward another 30 years. The Metropolitan Washington Regional Transportation Act will help us craft this vision.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be introducing legislation that would establish a federal tax refund offset program for state and local governments. Specifically, this program would require the federal government to withhold refunds from those individuals and corporations that still owe state or local government tax obligations. Today, the reverse situation exists. A number of states allow their own state agencies, local governments and the Internal Revenue Service to submit a list of delinquent taxpayers. The state then matches these delinquent accounts against taxpayers who may qualify for a state tax refund. If a match is found, the state reduces the refund by the amount of the delinquency and remits the funds to the claimant. These programs have proven to be low-cost and highly effective. Congress recognized the effectiveness of these programs and directed the Internal Revenue Service to establish a similar program to cover claims by other federal agencies, as well as for past-due child support obligations. In 2000, Congress expanded the program by directing the Treasury Department to accept claims by states for income tax obligations. The legislation I am introducing today builds on these successful programs by permitting local governments to participate. The local governments could submit their outstanding tax debts to the Department of the Treasury for an offset against any federal tax refund, just as federal agencies and states do now. This legislation would also permit a claim to be made for any legally enforceable tax obligation owed to the state or local government. In an era of tight state and local government budgets, it is patently unfair to have the taxpaying citizenry bear the costs and burdens of those who do not pay their fair share. As President Kennedy recognized, ``[t]o the extent that some people are dishonest or careless in their dealings with the government, the majority is forced to carry a heavier tax burden.'' (April 20, 1961) The legislation that I am introducing today will provide a means to help distribute that burden more equitably. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be introducing legislation that would establish federal tax refund offset program for state and local governments. Specifically, this program would require the federal government to withhold refunds from those individuals and corporations that still owe state or local government tax obligations. Today, the reverse situation exists. A number of states allow their own state agencies, local governments and the Internal Revenue Service to submit a list of delinquent taxpayers. The state then matches these delinquent accounts against taxpayers who may qualify for a state tax refund. If a match is found, the state reduces the refund by the amount of the delinquency and remits the funds to the claimant. These programs have proven to be low-cost and highly effective. Congress recognized the effectiveness of these programs and directed the Internal Revenue Service to establish a similar program to cover claims by other federal agencies, as well as for past-due child support obligations. In 2000, Congress expanded the program by directing the Treasury Department to accept claims by states for income tax obligations. The legislation I am introducing today builds on these successful programs by permitting local governments to participate. The local governments could submit their outstanding tax debts to the Department of the Treasury for an offset against any federal tax refund, just as federal agencies and states do now. This legislation would also permit a claim to be made for any legally enforceable tax obligation owed to the state or local government. In an era of tight state and local government budgets, it is patently unfair to have the taxpaying citizenry bear the costs and burdens of those who do not pay their fair share. As President Kennedy recognized, ``[t]o the extent that some people are dishonest or careless in their dealings with the government, the majority is forced to carry a heavier tax burden.'' (April 20, 1961) The legislation that I am introducing today will provide a means to help distribute that burden more equitably. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the School Readiness Act of 2003, which will reauthorize the Head Start program. I strongly support Head Start programs because they provide low- income preschool-aged children a comprehensive array of services such as child development, education, health, nutritional, social and other activities which help them receive greater advantages in life. Some of these services include health screenings and services. Statistics have shown that children who receive crucial services such as dental and eye care, or a hot breakfast every morning, have increased school readiness. In my congressional district, one of the most successful Head Start programs is the Alexandria Head Start. This is a collaboration among the Campagna Center, the city of Alexandria, and the Alexandria City Public Schools formed 35 years ago. AHS serve 253 Head Start children, and because of a wonderful group of dedicated educators, parents and teachers, these children have truly been given a ``head start.'' While many of my low-income constituents in the city of Alexandria are served by Head Start, I am concerned with the devastating statistic that 40 percent of eligible children nationwide will continue to be underserved under H.R. 2210. In fact, after a COLA adjustment for staff salaries and increased rent costs, H.R. 2210 just barely covers inflation and allows almost no program expansion. Due to ``insufficient funds,'' a large number of children who need these services will be unable to obtain them. Let's look at the facts right now. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2004 is $7.2 billion below the level needed to maintain current services for domestic priorities. Unfortunately with slashes in domestic discretionary spending coupled with massive tax cuts, the result has been fiscal crises at the State and Federal levels, which have translated into the underfunding of critical programs and services such as affordable housing, Medicare and Head Start. Due to this stark economic climate, supporters of H.R. 2210 want to block-grant Head Start to eight States whose preschool programs are untested and unproven. A year and a half ago, we all celebrated when the President Bush signed into law, the No Child Left Behind legislation, which was touted as the plan to bring stronger accountability and stronger standards to our Nation's schools. H.R. 2210 will in fact do the exact opposite of NCLB, by allowing States that have not demonstrated expertise or the commitment to providing quality service to these children, to be eligible for this block grant. Where are the standards? This block-grant will allow States to strip the Head Start program of the qualified services that it provides to children nationwide, and more importantly, that they and their families rely on. This was not what President Johnson intended when he founded this vital program. It was once said that ``Education is the great equalizer in a democratic society, and if people are not given access to a quality education, then what we are doing is creating an underclass of people who will ultimately challenge our very way of life.'' This statement has never been more true than today. The Head Start program was designed to give preschoolers a quality education while also ensuring that their social and physical needs were met, which helps put them on the path to success. Yet, the bill before us today will weaken and underfund the Head Start program while continuing to leave 40 percent of eligible children unserved. Instead, I ask all my colleagues to support the Miller amendment which will continue to build upon the successes of the Head Start program while striving to ensure that all eligible children in our country are served by Head Start and obtain the services that they need to receive a true ``head start'' in life.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment by my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo). Wildfires are a serious problem but we should not be undercutting an investment in our future. Build fewer roads in our national forests and I'll bet you'll have more money to fight forest fires and maybe even have fewer forest fires to fight. Mr. Chairman, this is a cynical amendment. Why target just the NEA? What has NEA done to deserve such spitefulness? Since its creation in 1965, the NEA has issued more than tens of thousands of grants. Of this total, fewer than 20 have been considered controversial. Match that 20 against grant recipients who received 35 of the past 46 National Book Awards, National Book Critics Circle Awards and Pulitzer Prizes in fiction and poetry since 1990. Match it against the grant recipients of PBS's Great Performances who were nominated for 121 Emmys and won 51 Emmys. The arts are vitally important to the intellectual and cultural growth of our nation. The contributions that the National Endowment for the Arts have made to such efforts are significant and should be permitted to continue at an even higher funding level. It has worked to enrich American life and culture by promoting knowledge of artistic endeavor, thought and culture throughout the nation. The endowment accomplishes this mission by providing grants for high-quality artistic projects. Great performances or small, NEA has supported hundreds of professional orchestras, dance companies, and nonprofit theaters, where before NEA's support there were none. As a member of the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, I have been privileged to learn more about the NEA through congressional hearings and outside witnesses. Federal funding for music, dance, theater, literature and visual arts is not just about quality of life; it's about investments to fulfill our human and economic potential. By directing funds toward culturally diverse, educational, community- oriented programs, for example, we provide places where at-risk youth can express themselves creatively rather than destructively. The small seed money NEA provides is an investments in communities across the country that will pay us back many fold in rich dividends. Today, we have a chance to increase our investment funding for this worthwhile program, not retreat from it. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for his leadership on these issues. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak both to the Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreements. With regard to Chile, this is going to level the trade playing field for U.S. companies and workers. Chile's uniform tariff of 6 percent will be immediately removed for more than 85 percent of all U.S. exports, and the remaining tariff is going to be phased out. By contrast, 65 percent, two-thirds of Chile's exports to the United States are already duty free, and there is an average of one-half of one percent tariff on those goods that face any duty. But the problem with Chile has been that, while the U.S. has spent years debating Trade Promotion Authority, Chile has been busy striking free trade deals with Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and the European Union. Because of these agreements, the U.S., which was once the dominant market for Chile's foreign trade, has seen its share of the Chilean market drop by one-third since 1997, and its bilateral trade agreement has reversed from surplus to deficit. Equally important, this is going to promote broader U.S. foreign policy goals in the Americas. Because Chile is one of the most stable, transparent and wealthy South American nations, it boasts impressive labor and environmental standards. We are also going to have the opportunity to further exercise our world leadership role by actively promoting democracy, civil rules of law, and human rights. With regard to Singapore, again, this should be a no-brainer for the Congress. Singapore is our 11th largest trading partner. It is renowned for its world-class infrastructure and very well-educated workforce. In my congressional district, for example, and there are many such suburban technology-oriented districts like mine across the country, it is going to have a very significant positive impact for the high-tech community. High-technology trade between the United States and Singapore represents about half of the total two-way trade. In 2002, the U.S. exported nearly $6 billion in high-tech goods to Singapore. The technology sector is the largest merchandise exporter in the United States, and that is the sector that is going to benefit most from the free trade agreement with Singapore. With respect to intellectual property rights, the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement contains protections to ensure that a rich, diverse, and competitive marketplace will be maintained throughout Asia. Singapore is our key gateway to the rest of Asia; so it is very important that they are going to grant our inventors, our writers, our artists, our business people strong enforceable property rights over the fruits of their creations. It establishes standards of protection that are consistent with U.S. law and requires that those protections be effectively enforced. Each party has to protect copyrights, trademarks, and patents against the illegal manufacture, import and export of pirated goods. It is terribly important. This is the right thing in promoting long-term economic growth for the United States and for Singapore and for this entire region of the world. So both with respect to Chile and Singapore, these are major advancements. This is the right thing to do for our economy, and for our foreign policy and I trust that these agreements are going to pass overwhelmingly. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered by my friend from Colorado, Mark Udall. My colleagues, the reason we have so many funding limitation amendments to this bill is not because of the actions of Chairman Taylor and the Appropriations Committee in general. It's because the congressional leadership has abdicated its institutional obligations to carry out its oversight responsibilities. And, nowhere is this abdication of responsibility more prominent than in the arena of the environment. I can understand from some in the west that the federal government owns too much land and that these states should have the first right of refusal. But let's redefine who exactly the federal government is. It's the people of the United States and it's their land. The stewardship responsibilities for these lands, these national parks, wildlife refuges, national forests, monuments and wilderness areas are the federal government's in accordance with the laws this institution has adopted in the name of all Americans and with their support. But when an administration disregards a moratorium directed by Congress and proceeds to use an obscure reinterpretation of an arcane mining law to carve up by roads some of America's great treasured landscapes and scenic lands, it has gone too far. Earlier this year, the Department of Interior amended an existing rule to facilitate right-of-way claims under Revised Statute 2477 (RS 2477), a long ago repealed provision of the Mining Law of 1866. The new regulation will allow any entity to file claims against federal lands, yet the new rule lacks any standard for determining the legitimacy of these claims. As a result of this and other changes, the amended disclaimer rule is being used to establish thousands of new roads potentially through National Parks, Refuges, Forests and Monuments or candidate wilderness sites without even proving any actual need. You've seen the pictures. Find a footpath, a donkey trail and you can undermine the people's and this nation's expressed desire to protect this land from development and the extraction industry. You say it is not happening, or maybe it is just limited to Utah. Think again. San Bernardino County in California has actively begun surveying specific routes and mapping claims. This process is 80 percent complete and the county has thus far claimed 4,986 miles, 2,567 of which are in the Mojave National Preserve. The county has requested the Department of Interior waive the $100 filing fee because they have so many RS 2477 claims the cost to the county to file all of these claims would be prohibitive. I am puzzled how they may lack the money to file these claims, but will somehow find the money to build all these roads? I doubt more than a fraction of these claims will ever give rise to a road, but the claims will prove sufficient to block federal, state and local efforts to protect the land these road claims bisect. Mr. Chairman, what the public would never support through legislation, the administration is doing by stealth. And, while these actions may succeed at removing these lands from federal protection, they will create a host of new liabilities and unfunded costs. In some states, including California and New Mexico, state law makes the local jurisdictions liable for failure to maintain a roadway. I wonder what future lawsuits we may be inviting when these localities will be sued for injuries caused by hazardous conditions on roads that were never built? Given the tens of thousands of claims that have been received, I fail to see corresponding increases in the Bureau of Land Management's budget to process them. Will the granting of rights-of-way, create any new financial obligations for the federal government? What costs, including environmental assessments and litigation might be involved? Mr. Chairman, this policy is an abomination. The administration needs to be reigned in and the purse strings are all that we have available. Support the Udall amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we do not want to take money from the Millennium Challenge Account, but the reality is we are arguing that the money be spent in a higher priority. We appreciate the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) making this amendment, bringing it to the floor. There is no higher priority right now for the United States. Many of us would hope that the Nation with the greatest wealth and power in the world would become the Nation of the greatest generosity. We may not be the most generous; but certainly if we do not rise to this challenge, then we will be indicted by the rest of the world, and rightfully so. We do not have the time to wait for another year. We know what is happening around the world. We know that every single day 15,000 more people are being infected with HIV, and it is growing. We know that 22 million people have lost their lives, over 36 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, and only 2 percent of them have access to life-prolonging therapies or basic treatment. Most troubling is what is happening to the children of the world, particularly the children in Africa. I know that the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) was deeply moved in Ethiopia, for example, when we went to the school that is run by nuns and saw the number of children, and realized that all of those children, before they become adults, they are going to join their classmates in the graveyard up the mountain. The nuns would tell us each morning there would be children delivered by parents to the door of this school, some by parents, some by sanitation workers, and those delivered by sanitation workers would be children who had lost their limbs because they were thrown into a dumpster, it was known there was no hope for them, and the dogs had gotten to them. These are things we cannot even imagine in this country of such wealth and prosperity, with such a high standard of living. But do we not have some responsibility when we can afford to do something better? We are very good at promising the rest of the world what we are going to do for them. The President has made many promises. He certainly did on his trip to Africa. Repeatedly he touted the fact he was going to spend $15 billion over the next 5 years on AIDS. I did not hear $2 billion; I heard $15 billion. I know in the minds of the people who heard that, they heard $3 billion a year, $15 billion divided by five. Somehow they got some hope that we realize what is happening to them, that we realize that 60 million Africans are either living with HIV, have died of AIDS, or lost a parent to AIDS. We are their source of hope. And while it is important to tell people what we are going to do for them, it is even more important to do what we say. And we know they expect us to deliver, because we have the capacity to deliver. It is heartbreaking what AIDS has done to the continent of Africa, to Asia, throughout the world really. And if the only argument that succeeds today is one of security, AIDS is a global crisis that threatens the security of every government and every nation, including the United States. It has destroyed societies, destabilized governments, and certainly has the potential to topple democracies. Many militaries are infected throughout the world with AIDS, and they are infecting the population. We are the ones who have to take the lead, the lead role. We take the lead role from a military standpoint, and we are very successful. The excellence of our military is unquestioned. But should we also not take the lead role in being the most moral country and using our resources to make a difference? And where else could we make such an enormous, profound difference than investing and saving the lives of people, in changing this fact, that 40 million more children will become orphans in this decade? That will happen, if we do not stop it. We can stop it from happening by acting today. We have no more time; we have no excuses. The Kilpatrick amendment should be funded.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to bring the body's attention to an amendment that was added in the full committee over the objections of the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee. It was an amendment added by our colleague, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), that barely passed, but should not have. It was not the subject of hearings. It has no support from law enforcement. It has no support from Attorney General Ashcroft. And it has no support from the major association that represents licensed firearms dealers. It really serves to protect only the most corrupt gun dealers at the expense of all other legitimate gun dealers. Specifically, this amendment provides protection to phantom dealers. These are people who sign up as dealers to be able to buy guns wholesale, but without the intention of reselling them, so they are really not businesses, as such, and should not be buying guns wholesale. Normally, they distribute them for illegal purposes. It permits recalcitrant dealers to ignore police requests for assistance. Nearly all licensed dealers perform this duty quickly and accurately to law enforcement, but there are about 8 percent of crime guns that cannot be traced because licensed dealers refuse to cooperate with police. This would legally allow them to refuse to cooperate with the police and allows licensed gun dealers not to cooperate in making gun traces. That clearly is counter to people's public safety. It allows felons to retain Federal firearms licenses. It denies Congress and the public crime gun data that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms needs. It ends the oversight of used firearms sales, and it requires destruction of records that now the Federal Bureau of Investigation needs. All of these things, I think, undermine the public's need to protect itself from felons, from people with a history of mental illness, from people who are involved in the illegal transfer of firearms. We had somebody that provided the firearm that was used by the snipers that killed many people in the Washington area. They went back to the dealer and found that there were over 100 firearms that they had no record of. Well, they do not keep records because they do not want people to know that they either sold to felons or to people who are minors, or they do not want to pay taxes, or whatever the reason. But clearly, they should be having records. This would enable them to refuse to cooperate with law enforcement. So I want to make the Members aware of the fact that this amendment is in this bill, and it is a bad amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) for his leadership on this issue. This is a poster paid for by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. This one happens to be distributed jointly with Arizona and New Mexico's Departments of Game and Fish. It says, ``Just Be Bear Aware,'' and the reason it says ``Don't feed bears'' is because most conflicts between humans and bears arise as a result of human-supplied food. It says, ``Remember, a fed bear is a dead bear.'' This is all about safety to the public. The reason why we do not want bears to be fed is that they become nuisances, they become a threat to property and particularly to people. That is Federal policy. All we are trying to do in this bill is to make sure that Federal policy is consistent, it is consistently in the public interest. There is no difference between bear baiting and bear feeding. That is what this amendment says. The fact is that bait sites typically consist of pastries, junk food, the kinds of foods you typically find at camp sites and dumpsters. Once acclimated to those human foods, bears become aggressive in approaching campers, park visitors, and they migrate to those areas where those kinds of treats can be found. That is what leads to property damage, attacks on people, and the bears being shot as nuisance animals. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) said they cannot continue hunting without bear baiting, but I cannot believe that the bears in Minnesota are that different from the bears in Oregon and Washington and the 41 other States which banned this practice.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, if that is the case, I reserve my right to close. Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) to respond to the last speaker's comments for the record here.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak against the Sessions-Davis amendment. The provision contained in the Interior Appropriations bill that this amendment seeks to strike, is a well- crafted, bipartisan effort that has the support of both the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the subcommittee. After careful review of the Office of Management and Budget's competitive outsourcing initiative, the subcommittee believed that the massive scale on which the initiative is being carried out and the arbitrary targets involved is of great concern, especially considering the enormous costs associated with the initiative which are expected to be absorbed by the agency. During last year's consideration of the FY03 Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill, I offered an amendment prohibiting OMB or any other federal agency from using numerical quotas, targets, or goals for outsourcing initiatives. The point was to give federal agencies the flexibility to contract out as much or as little government work as they feel is necessary to meet their mission requirements. The House passed this amendment overwhelmingly with bipartisan support. Unfortunately, the provision was watered-down in conference and the administration is still moving full steam ahead with their quotas-driven agenda for the current fiscal year. As has been reported in the news over the last several weeks, in an effort to meet OMB's quota for the end of this fiscal year, the Interior Department has targeted thousands of jobs to be outsourced including archaeologists, scientists, engineers, and firefighters. Specifically, Interior's quota is 5,000 jobs, with the biggest piece-- 1,708 jobs--coming from the Park Service. To conduct these massive outsourcing studies, the department is diverting critical funds and staff from high-priority assignments and consumed funding that is directed towards fulfilling important mission- essential requirements. Personel from the Interior Department agencies, including the National Park Service and Forest Service, have expressed concern over the declining morale due to OMB's rigid and arbitrary requirements. With this country in the midst of a ``human capital crisis'' what kind of message does this send in recruiting and retaining our best and brightest to safeguarding America's natural treasures. Time and again, OMB has refused to supply any research or analysis to justify the privatization quota, despite a report requirement in the FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. What Section 335 in the Interior Appropriations bill does is limit competitive outsourcing studies that are underway for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 until the department and agencies submit a report detailing schedules, plans, and cost analysis. Striking this section would only give OMB the green light to continue with their competitive outsourcing initiative without the oversight and accountability reasonably requested. I understand the sponsors of this amendment have agreed to withdraw their amendment. I thank them for doing so and support the retention of Section 335 of the Interior Appropriations bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 354, I was delayed in traffic. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore