Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I missed the vote as well. There was a thunderstorm. I was caught in traffic, and I had no idea that such a quick gavel would be called on such an important vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the very distinguished subcommittee chairman not just for yielding me this time but for the fact that this committee, I understand, has really been pretty fair to the Washington area, because I know the pressure that is on the committee with regard to National Airport, to expand the slots not just incrementally but exponentially because everyone would like the convenience of National Airport and a lot of the airlines would like transcontinental flights. But we have a very serious concern. I know the chairman knows that, I know the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) is aware of that and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), all of the people that have been involved in this know that there was an agreement signed back in 1986 where the Washington area took over the financing and operational responsibility for National and Dulles airports. The deal was that the Congress would not micromanage. Yet we do have 20 additional slots here and we have 12 slots that go beyond the 1,250-mile perimeter rule which was a very basic part of that agreement. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and I have a very serious concern with expanding those slots. What we would like at least is an agreement that we will take out the so-called ``come see me'' provision so this would be the end of the slot expansion and we would like to get general aviation opened. I know that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) has been working on general aviation. It is very important to our economy but important to so many economies throughout the country. It does not make sense to keep general aviation closed.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for supporting this amendment. The reason why the gentlewoman and I offered this amendment is that we really have an unfair provision here that, as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) said, does not apply to any other airport authority. It says that we cannot receive in the Washington area any new airport improvement grants or new passenger facility charges until we come back to the Congress. This is in violation, really, of a 1986 agreement that then Mrs. Dole, Elizabeth Dole, who was Secretary of Transportation, made with the Washington region. The words said that the airport authority, the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, will have ``full power and dominion over, and complete discretion in, operation and development of the Airports.'' In return, Virginia, D.C., and Maryland agreed to accept operational control of the airports and raise the money necessary to modernize them. We fulfilled our part of the bargain. We have two terrific airports. We funded them and we operate them. All we are asking is that we be treated like every other airport, and that we not have to come back and get this special authority to be able to continue doing what we, under law, are doing and doing very well. The expansion of slots is micromanaging an airport by the Federal Government that really is in contradiction to the agreement. Likewise, it is designating some of those slots to go beyond the 1,250-mile perimeter rule. National Airport was not built to accommodate transcontinental flights. It was built for short-haul flights to serve midsized cities. Ultimately, this is going to harm those midsized cities up and down the east coast, basically east of the Mississippi River. It is going to hurt their economy. It also jeopardizes the economy, the economic viability, of Dulles Airport, which was built to handle transcontinental flights. If we start sending those flights to National, even though it is more convenient to get to National, it really hurts Dulles. It is going to hurt the economy, not just for this region, but of the Nation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an incredible woman from my district who recently received a Robert Wood Johnson Community Health Leadership Program award. Sylvia Portillo earned this prestigious award through her hard work in expanding health care for the Latino community of northern Virginia. Sylvia Portillo overcame adversity as a Spanish-speaking immigrant and low-wage worker to become a major health leader in her community. Her career in health care began in El Salvador where she worked as a nurse. Upon fleeing war-torn El Salvador, Sylvia became a home health care companion in Arlington County, to support the three children she left with relatives back home as well as her new family in the United States. Ms. Portillo was inspired to become a health care advocate for Latinos and other underserved community residents after her experience and the roadblocks she encountered when she tried to get health care and insurance for her two youngest children. In 1996 she joined the Tenants' and Workers' Support Committee as a volunteer in the Women's Leadership Group. There she organized the Latino community's first health fair by bringing together neighbors, doctors, local groups and city officials. In its seventh year, the fair is the only source of health care for many residents. In 1997, Sylvia became lead organizer for the committee's Health Project with a goal of increasing health access for Alexandria's Latino community. Since then, she has recruited and trained more than 80 health promoters to educate the community about preventive health practices. Ms. Portillo has also led a campaign that won $300,000 in medical debt relief from the leading area health system and persuaded local hospitals to hire bilingual staff. The project also has completed three landmark studies documenting conditions of Latino immigrants, including occupational health problems and the consequences of medical debt. One of the most impressive testimonies about the work Sylvia has accomplished came from a woman who sought her help with a medical debt she could not pay since she was unable to work. Sylvia helped her understand our health system, despite her inability to read. ``By working with Silvia, I am no longer afraid,'' the woman said. Sylvia and the Health Project have helped countless people throughout my congressional district and northern Virginia. I am proud to have Sylvia in my district, and I look forward to seeing what else she can accomplish in ensuring that her friends and neighbors receive the health care they deserve.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, last week President Bush signed the new tax cut law. That law is going to give $93,500 per year to the 200,000 taxpayers making over $1 million a year while the majority of all taxpayers would get less than $100 under this new Republican tax plan. But to rub salt into wounds, there was a deliberate decision to deny every family whose income is under $26,625 a year the child tax credit. That includes most of the working class in this country. It includes nearly all men and women in combat. Their earned income is not $26,625, so they do not even qualify for the child tax credit and here they are putting their lives on the line for our country. This is unbelievable. The fact is, the families of the 12 million children denied this credit do pay taxes. Millions of them pay into the Social Security trust fund. That is the money we are having to borrow to pay for this tax cut.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for introducing this substitute along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood). I have voted for the ban on partial-birth abortion at every other point when it has come up. We are talking about a procedure that represents less than one-fifth of 1 percent of the abortions that are performed in this country. Every one of us wants abortions to be rare; none of us favor abortion. We would love to see not just the issue taken off the floor, but that option taken off the table so that every family could have a healthy baby and every mother could continue to live a full life. I am changing my vote, and I could suggest it is for legalistic intellectual reasons. I could cite the Stenberg v. Carhart decision in Nebraska where the so-called partial-birth abortion law was struck down. The Supreme Court has already deemed it unconstitutional. But my decision is not coming from the mind as much as the heart. It is because I have talked to too many families I know that I represent. These are devoted parents, loving partners that want their children, who place their family above everything else; but when a family finds that they have a seriously deformed fetus or where they find that the mother has a very serious illness, cancer, heart disease, any number of other possible illnesses, that couple sits down at the kitchen table, or lies together at night agonizing, as agonizing a decision as they could make, and what right do we have to barge into their bedroom, to sit down at their kitchen table and put our hands on our hips and preach to them what they should do. Do we for a moment think that they love their child in the concrete less than we do in the abstract? We are talking about the abstract here. They are talking in the concrete. We have got to respect the sovereignty of the American family. That is what this is about. They have the right to make this decision, and only they do in the context of their religion, their family, what is right for their family, what is right for each other. They know best; they know better than we do. Support the substitute.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this legislative proposal to amend the Constitution, giving Congress the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag. For more than 2 centuries, the first amendment to the Constitution has safeguarded the right of our people to write or publish almost anything without interference, to practice their religion freely and to protest against the Government in almost every way imaginable. It is a sign of our strength that, unlike so many repressive nations on earth, ours is a country with a constitution and a body of laws that accommodates a wide-ranging public debate. There is little question that those who would desecrate the flag have a lack of respect for this great nation. But we need not give these misinformed individuals any more attention than they deserve. One can imagine the future protest situations that would take place should this legislation ever receive the massive support required of a constitutional change. It would be outrageous. And the contribution to the average hardworking American? More taxpayer dollars and police manpower wasted in the pursuit of little more than an offender lacking patriotism and good taste. The American flag does not need protection from such poor behavior. The principles embodied in it outshine such cowardly attempts to defame its stature. Rather than spending time today arguing the merits of the 1st amendment, we should be focusing more attention on improving the daily lives of millions of Americans. From the rising costs of health care to a lack of affordable housing, many of our nation's veterans are struggling to make ends meet and now brace for the substantial cuts in benefits passed by this body. But instead of tackling those issues, we stand here debating a solution in search of a problem. Those brave men and women who risked their lives protecting our democracy need more than politicians paying them lip service, they need money to help pay the bills. Heck, they can't even get a proper military burial service at Arlington National Cemetery because cuts to Veterans Affairs funding have eliminated the use of live buglers and replaced them with battery powered boom boxes. What a shame. In short, the amendment in question is unnecessary. We don't need it and we must not become the first Congress in U.S. history to chill public debate by amending the Constitution in such a way. This issue truly tests the notion of freedom of speech guaranteed by our fore fathers. Let's pass this test and do the right thing by opposing this unmerited resolution.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a word about what happened before we went into recess, the fact that we voted on a bill that provided hundreds of billions of dollars of tax relief, but not to the people who needed it the most. In fact, we now see that about one-tenth of 1 percent of the very wealthiest Americans receive approximately as much tax benefit as the 90 percent of Americans with incomes of $95,000 or less. But the most outrageous thing about this tax cut was something we did not know. It took the newspapers, and I saw it in The New York Times a week later, that revealed that we actually eliminated the child tax credit for families with incomes below $26,000, the working poor, the families who needed tax cuts the most. I mean, I cannot believe that this Congress did that to working-class families and did not even give us the opportunity to debate it. I hope that there is a groundswell of public opposition to what we do and we can reverse this. The Democratic Party is determined to do so.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many of my colleagues listened to Warren Buffett last night. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) mentioned it. He talked about the fact that this bill is going to give him $310 million of additional revenue. It is going to bring his effective tax rate down to 3 percent. But he looked at his secretary and he realizes that her effective tax rate is still going to be 30 percent. He says, yeah, this is class warfare and my class is winning. But it is wrong. I am going to win, whatever happens. I want the people of America to be as productive as possible. And to be productive, they need to be well educated. They need to have decent health care. They need to be able to provide for their families. And they cannot be saddled by trillions of dollars of debt. He is opposed to this because he knows it is wrong for America and he knows it is not fair. We offered something that was fair. We offered something that was fiscally responsible. That is what America wants. But America is not going to get it because here it is at 1 a.m. in the morning talking about a tax cut of hundreds of billions of dollars, $1 trillion over the next decade. That is not the way to treat the people that elected us.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the gentleman that Warren Buffett said that money can be better spent when it is kept in corporations, not with individuals. Corporations can build jobs faster, and they will. That is why this dividend tax cut does not work.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we all strongly support this bill as a needed and overdue national commitment. AIDS is a global crisis which threatens the security of every government in every nation, even including the United States. It has destroyed societies, and it will destabilize democratic governments. According to UNAIDS, nearly 22 million people have lost their lives and over 36 million people today are living with HIV and AIDS. Fewer than 2 percent of them have access to life-prolonging therapies or basic treatment. That is the problem. And we are the only ones with the resources to really do something about it. The number of new infections of HIV is estimated at 15,000 people a day, and it is growing. In Africa, which has 70 percent of the AIDS cases, 22 million people are living with this disease. In some countries, 20 percent or more are infected; and in a number of countries that recently visited in Africa, 34 percent of women of childbearing age are infected. That means that an estimated 600,000 African children become infected with AIDS every single year as a result of mother-to-child transmission either at birth or through breast feeding. The deaths of parents with HIV/AIDS will result in 40 million orphans this decade alone. They have nowhere to go. They do not inherit anything. The boys go in to gangs, the girls too often into sexual slavery or some form of servitude. This bill, while it is a terribly important step, raises concerns about the intent to limit our flexibility to do everything we can to combat this problem. Abstinence, for example, while a prevention strategy, is not a public health program. It is an education approach based on moral or religious belief. We do not argue with that moral or religious belief, but this is an urgent matter. We have to do everything possible that will work. The fact is that in the developing world, too many women do not have the option of abstinence. That is the reality they have to deal with. Their rights are almost nonexistent. Many of them do not have the option to say no to sex from men, control the number of partners or protect themselves from sexual assault. That is true, that is reality, and that is what we have to deal with. Even the restrictive provision on prostitution limits our effectiveness. We have got to get access to women who are endangered, whatever it takes to save their lives. I urge the administration to use all the flexibility and common sense they can. We are talking about saving lives here. We are talking about a horrible reality. But we have got to roll up our sleeves and do what is necessary, do what is the moral imperative for this Nation to do today. All of us will strongly support the bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Frank Lotts. Mr. Lotts is a native Virginian who has served his nation through superior service in the military and the federal government for the past 35 years. Born in Staunton, Virginia, Mr. Lotts completed his education at several Virginia state universities and joined the United States Army in 1967 where he served until 1970. During this time he attended Officer Candidate School at Fort Knox and served as a Platoon Leader and Troop Commander in the 4th Squadron, 7th U.S. Cavalry, 2nd Infantry Division. After leaving the Army, Frank Lotts began an internship with the Defense Logistics Agency. His training began as an inventory manager with the Directorate of Supply Operations at the Defense Supply Center Richmond. Due to his exemplary work, Mr. Lotts was assigned to the task force for the implementation of the Standard Automated Material Management System. In January, 1973, he accepted a position at the DLA headquarters within the Directorate of Supply Operations. In 1974, Mr. Lotts returned to the Defense Supply Center Richmond as a member of the Operations Research Group. Three years later, he served as a Senior Program Manager and went on to serve as Chief, Requirements Branch and Chief, Logistics Division at the Directorate of Supply Operations. As a result of his tremendous work ethic, Mr. Lotts continued his ascent at DSCR by becoming Director of Plans and Policies and, in 1990, the Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer. In 2000, he assumed his current position as Deputy Director of Logistics Management at the DLA Headquarters. He is responsible for providing the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and other federal agencies with a variety of logistics, acquisition and technical services in times of peace and war. This mission is performed by approximately 23,000 civilian and military personnel and it is through Mr. Lotts's hard work and management that it is accomplished efficiently. Due to his service at DLA, Mr. Lotts is a Senior Executive Fellow at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and has been honored with several awards, including the 2002 and 1999 Presidential Rank Award, the 1998 Defense Civilian Distinguished Service Award and the 1993 DLA Exceptional Civilian Service Award. As he retires from this service to the United States, I am grateful for all Frank Lotts has accomplished during his tenure with the government, and I know he has had a strong impact on several projects throughout the Defense Logistics Agency. His service will be missed. I wish him the best of luck in his retirement.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this important bill which amends the Microenterprise for Self-Reliance Act of 2000 and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. This bill would increase assistance for the poorest people in developing countries by authorizing $375 million in microenterprise loans. Microenterprise loan assist people in overcoming poverty through participation in the private sector and are a successful means to combating the debilitating level of poverty in the developing world. It has been estimated that the number of microenterprises range from one-third to one-half of the world's businesses. However, there are major challenges for microenterpreuenurs who face several impediments to improving their productivity and standard of living such as a lack of skills and market access, legal barriers, and especially, an absence of capital. This bill will open unlimited doors of opportunity for the world's poorest people. Many microenterprise loans are less than a $100. What may seem to Americans as a relatively small amount of money, can change the lives of families and communities. Take for instance a woman in Ghana who tries to make a living selling donuts in her village, but is limited to how many she can make in a day with her own hands. With a small amount of money, this same woman is able to purchase equipment that can make more than one donut at a time and increase sales and profit. This in turn elevates the standard of living for herself and her family. A relatively small amount of capital can help empower the world's poorest people and help them graduate from the lowest levels of poverty. Microenterprise loans are an important part of our country's foreign assistance program. I commend this body for taking up this important measure. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of this bill and I urge its passage.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this reckless Republican tax cut in a budget already plagued by deficits as far as the eye can see. In light of the worst fiscal reversal in the nation's history, the Republican leadership has decided to propose more of the same failed policies. In addition, the leadership is stymieing debate by bringing a closed rule to the floor and prohibiting the Democrats from offering an alternative proposal. This proposal to be debated today will do nothing to stimulate the economy, create jobs, increase investor confidence, or put money back in the hands of the people who need it the most. In fact, all this tax bill will do give tax breaks to people who don't need it on the backs of our children and grandchildren. The Republican tax bill is cloaked in a series of half-truths. The leadership has placed a $550 billion price tag on this measure, but we all know that because major provisions of the bill are scheduled to expire after the three years, the true cost of the tax cut will be much higher. How can this body even justify considering large upper-bracket tax cuts that will worsen the long-term deficit to $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years? We should be paying down the national debt to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation, set to begin in 5 years. If Democrats were given the opportunity to offer our plan, the Democratic Jobs and Economic Growth Plan, people would see a true contrast. They would see a responsible economic proposal designed to stimulate the economy now. Our plan is a fair, fast-acting, and fiscally sound alternative. The Democratic plan includes tax cuts for working families and small businesses, and creates more than one million jobs by the end of 2003 and does not inflict the long-term damage to the budget that the Republican plan does. Finally, by providing tax cuts to working families and extending unemployment benefits, the Democratic plan helps average Americans, the people most likely to spend money and boost consumer demand, thus creating jobs. I am sure this body will end up passing this dangerous Republican tax bill, and when it does, we will be adding another $2 trillion of debt that our children and grandchildren are going to have to pay. It is almost criminal to be saddling future generations with having to finance a tax cut for us today. Mr. Speaker, this tax cut is reckless and irresponsible and not in the best interests of this nation. I strongly urge this body to oppose this measure.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Workforce Reinvestment and Education Act. This legislation fails to recognize what we all know: that there are over 8.3 million Americans who are out of work in this country. This is the longest stretch of job loss since the Great Depression. With the unemployment rate now at 6 percent, it is reprehensible that this legislation, which some have said is a ``reinvestment in our nation's workforce,'' does not include an extension of federal employment benefits, especially as they are set to expire at the end of this month. When we extended the program last January, the rate of unemployment was even lower than the rate today, and now we have reached near crisis point. It has been estimated that more than 43 percent of unemployed workers are exhausting their state benefits without finding work, and this number will continue to climb if Congress does not address this issue soon. This bill also does a disservice to our veterans. Many of our troops that are currently serving in the war in Iraq, will soon be returning home to an economy where jobs are disappearing at a fast rate. Under the current bill, funds targeted toward veteran employment services would be pooled with other Workforce Investment funds and those services previously targeted to serve our troops become discretionary depending on how the individual state workforce investment board decides. As we all know, these programs are already critically underfunded. They strive to meet the increasing demands placed upon them in an environment of increasingly inadequate resources. To be effective, these programs cannot sustain these devastating cuts. Finally, the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act would eliminate the civil rights protections of Americans, by exempting religious organizations from anti-discrimination requirements. The message that we are sending to the millions of Americans who are unemployed, who are veterans and those who are in need of economic assistance is that we do not care about keeping them from falling further into an economic crisis. This bill is not a reinvestment in our workforce and fails to aid the millions of jobless Americans who need it the most. I urge all my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1261.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. That is the operable phrase, my friend. If you are in a hole, and we are in a very deep deficit hole, you ought to stop digging. In 2001 we were told that the tax cuts of $1.3 trillion were going to revive the economy. They did nothing like that. What they did was to cause more unemployment and the financial markets to lose confidence in the future, and it has hurt States and localities terribly. I suspect, though, that the answer to the gentleman's question, why has this President Bush acted so differently than his father, is that he recognizes that although his father did the right thing in 1990, set this country on the course of a balanced budget, and really it was President Clinton acting consistently with that 1990 legislation in 1993, but the first President Bush deserves a lot of credit. But I suspect the people in the White House now feel that may have been why he lost the presidency. But that ought not be the criteria. The criteria ought to be whether your years in service to this country have produced a better America, not only for your family and my family and the whole American family, but, most importantly, for future generations of America. That is what we are looking for. We are looking for that long-sighted economic policy that has worked in the past. I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful, historical perspective; and I yield back to the gentleman so he may call on other colleagues.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. We had the strongest economy.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I suspect, I know it is a very good question, that they figure the American people are never going to catch on to what they are doing, to what the real cost of these tax cuts are, to the fact that the real cost of these tax cuts is $4.6 trillion over the next decade, if you include the interest on the debt that has to be borrowed and if you do what we know is going to have to be done, which is to make all these tax cuts permanent. No Congress is going to restore taxes, nor is it going to increase taxes. We know everybody wants to cut taxes, so they are not going to be reinstated. It is just like the ones passed in 2001. We know that, the Republicans know that, but the Republicans are assuming the American people are not going to catch on, and they can fit this in a budget resolution and purport to suggest that this is some kind of balanced budget. It is not. We have got deficits as far as the eye can see. Who is going to pay for them? Not us. We are going to be retired. It is our kids that are going to have to pay for them. Thousands of dollars a year they are going to be paying because of what we are about to do tomorrow. This is wrong. This country cannot afford it. What this country can afford is getting people back on their feet, getting money back to States where they can generate $1.73 for every dollar invested, instead of 9 cents generated by the President's proposal. We need to believe in America. We need to recognize what has worked in the past, what worked in the 90s, and what has not worked since President Bush took office. We have turned a $5.6 trillion surplus into trillions of dollars of debt, and it is mounting every year. I know my colleagues are here, and they want to share their views as well; but I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for all of his fine work in protecting and enhancing the Federal civil service. I am glad we have an opportunity to recognize the value of public service. Normally, these resolutions come and go and nobody pays much attention to them, but there is a particular benefit to having this opportunity right now, as the distinguished representative, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), explained earlier. This is a pivotal time in the history of the Federal workforce. It is a time when half of that Federal workforce will be eligible to retire within the next 3 to 5 years. Of the 2.7 million people, half of them may retire. Many people will say, so what. Well, for those who are going to be so blase about the importance of the Federal workforce, then I would ask them to look at some of the other civil services throughout the world. They will not find any other civil service that is as incorruptible, that is as productive, that is as responsible, as the Federal workforce. They are not perfect, but the vast majority of them went into the Federal civil service because they wanted to make other people's lives better, and they remain dedicated to that purpose. But when most of them joined the civil service, it was held in highest esteem. In the 1960s, three-quarters of high school graduates said they thought it would be honorable to work in public service. Now it is about one out of 5. We have diminished the value and the prestige of the Federal civil service, but they have not diminished their output or their commitment. But this, as I say, is a pivotal time because instead of trying to attract and retain the best people into civil service, what we have done is to come up with disincentives. The Congress has to fight every year to get a pay raise, even equal to the current very low rate of inflation. We have fought to protect civil servants' ability to collectively bargain, to maintain their health benefits, affordable health insurance; and now as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) mentioned, we have perhaps the biggest struggle: about a third of the Federal workforce, those who work for the Department of Defense, may lose their civil service protections. The Pentagon's desire is to contract them out. In fact, nearly half a million people, 425,000, are targeted throughout the Federal government to have their job contracted out to the private sector. In some cases that is appropriate; but in many cases it is not, and we are not going to find the kind of dedication to public service, even professionalism and willingness to accept in most cases less pay to be able to serve the public. We find that on average the difference for performing the same function between the private sector and the Federal sector is 32 percent. It is a smaller disparity on the part of lower-paid employees. As we move into management, the gap is wider. In terms of skilled professionals, the gap is widest. I think we are in danger of losing something that this country has taken for granted. We need to reward Federal civil servants. We need to protect their benefits and enable them to collectively bargain, and in fact take every opportunity, such as this resolution presents us with, to say thank you, Federal civil servants, thank you for making this the strongest, most cohesive, most stable government in the history of mankind. We are proud of you. We want you to stay, we want you to maintain your commitment, and we want you to know that we appreciate what you do.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by my fellow Virginians Reps. Jo Ann Davis, Tom Davis, Bobby Scott, and Edward Schrock and Rep. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii in introducing the ``Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act.'' This legislation will grant federal recognition to six Indian tribes in Virginia: the Chickahominy Tribe, Chickahominy Indian Tribe Eastern Division, the Upper Mattaponi, the Rappahannock Tribe, the Monacan Tribe, and the Nansemond Tribe. As we approach the 400th anniversary of the first permanent European settlement in North America, we are long overdue in recognizing the direct descendants of the native Americans, who met these settlers. We must acknowledge these historic tribes and the significance of their heritage. Together, the men and women of these tribes represent a long neglected part of our nation's history. Like much of our early history as a nation, the Virginia tribes were subdued, pushed off their land, and, up through much of the 20th Century, denied full rights as U.S. citizens. Despite their devastating loss of land and population, the Virginia Indians successfully overcame years of racial discrimination that denied them equal opportunities to pursue their education and preserve their cultural identity. That story of survival doesn't encompass decades, it spans centuries of racial hostility and coercive state and state-sanctioned actions. Unlike most tribes that resisted encroachment and obtained federal recognition when they signed peace treaties with the federal government, Virginia's six tribes signed their peace treaties with the Kings of England. Most notable among these was the Treaty of 1677 between these tribes and Charles the II. In more recent times, this racial hostility culminated with the enactment and brutal enforcement of Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924. This act empowered zealots, like Walter Plecker, a state official, to destroy records and reclassify in Orwellian fashion all non-whites as ``colored.'' To call yourself a ``Native American'' in Virginia was to risk a jail sentence of up to one year. Married couples were denied marriage certificates or even unable to obtain the release of their newborn child from a hospital until they changed their ethnicity on the state record to read ``colored,'' not ``Native American.'' For much of the 20th Century admission to public schools education was denied. These and other indignities are part of a shameful legacy experienced in our lifetime. More to the point, this legacy has also complicated these tribes' quest for federal recognition, making it difficult to furnish corroborating state and official documents. It wasn't until 1997 when then Governor George Allen signed legislation directing state agencies to correct state records that had deliberately been altered to list Virginia Indians on official state documents as ``colored.'' Federal recognition would provide what the government has long denied, legal protections and financial obligations, including certain social services and benefits the federal government provides the 562- recognized tribes. I know that the gambling issue may be at the forefront of some people's concerns. In response to this concern, I have worked to close any potential legal loopholes in this legislation to ensure that the state could prevent casino-type gaming by the tribes. Having maintained a close relationship with many of the members of these tribes, I believe they are sincere in their claims that gambling is inconsistent with their values. This position is already borne out by the fact that none of the tribes today engage in bingo gambling despite the fact that they have all established non-profit organizations that are permitted under Virginia law to operate bingo games despite compelling financial needs that revenues from bingo could address. The real issue for the tribes is one of recognition and the long overdue need for the federal government to affirm their identity as Native Americans. Coupled with this affirmation is an opportunity for the tribes to establish a more equitable relationship with the state and secure federal financial assistance for the tribes' social services, health care and housing needs. Many of their older members face the prospect of retiring without pensions and health benefits that most Americans take for granted. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 135, dealing with Ms. Markey's amendment to prevent drilling in ANWR, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Stated against:

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 136, the Davis amendment. I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``ayes.'' Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this budget conference report is the most fiscally irresponsible budget ever proposed to this House. When the Bush administration came into office, there was a projected $5.6 trillion 10 year surplus. Under this budget conference report, the country will pile up $12 trillion in debt over the next decade. We are doing it at the very time that we know that the next generation is going to be saddled with all of this mounting debt, because most of us are members of the baby-boom generation. We start retiring in 2008. We are going to double the number of people on the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, and yet we are going to borrow trillions of dollars from those trust funds to pay for these tax cuts. This will be the third budget built on economic policies that have not worked since President Bush took office. All you have offered is tax cuts and promises of economic growth. But instead of growth, 2.6 million private sector jobs have been lost between President Bush's election and today, and, by your own estimate, this plan will generate over the next year only half the number of jobs that have been lost in just the last 2 months. The market value of stocks has fallen by $5 trillion since President Bush took office and you started these budget plans. Consumer confidence has dropped to its lowest level in 9 years. Now, in contrast, the House Democratic budget protected key services from cuts, we made focused investments in health care and other priorities and we boosted economic growth with an effective, fiscally responsible stimulus plan. We would have created six times the number of jobs that are contained in this plan, six times, when the country most needs those new jobs. We achieved budget balance within this decade. There was $1.3 trillion less accumulated debt. In contrast, to pay for these oversized tax cuts, the Republican conference report runs deeper deficits, cuts key services to the people who are neediest, fails to make adequate investments in this Nation's priorities and omits any effective economic stimulus plan. Vote against this embarrassment; if not for the sake of this body, do it for the sake of your kids who are going to be stuck with the bill for it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we know that you know that this is not a budget you can be proud of because if you were proud of this budget, you would not be bringing it up between 1 and 2 a.m. in the morning when most of the American public is asleep. I do not think that you are going to share with your children or grandchildren what you have done to them, creating $12 trillion of debt that they will have to pay back. You are not going to share with them the fact that you and your generation are going to be retiring, most Members over the next decade, doubling the number of people on the Social Security and Medicare rolls, at just the time when you are borrowing trillions of dollars from those trust funds in order to reward yourself and your supporters, your political supporters with deep tax cuts. Here you tell us that there is a war on so we need to do this. There is not one dime in this budget for the war in Iraq, not one dime. Members know that is in the 2003 supplemental. That is not in this budget. This is a budget that needs to be defeated. Do it for our children.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is an attempt to provide special legal protection for the gun industry at the expense of innocent Americans who have been harmed by the dangerous and irresponsible actions of some firearm manufacturers and sellers. The gun industry should be subject to the same legal standards of conduct that govern all other people and industries in society. Guns are only one of two consumer products, tobacco is the other, that are exempt from Federal health and safety regulation. Consequently, American consumers receive Federal protection from safety flaws in products such as children's toys, pillows, car seats, but not from deadly firearms. This legislation is especially unconscionable in light of the gun violence that continues to plague our Nation. Recently, Americans watched in horror as citizens were gunned down by a sniper in Maryland, the District of Columbia, and my home State of Virginia. While local law enforcement officials are prosecuting the snipers for their crimes, the families who lost loved ones in the attack have also filed civil lawsuits to ensure that those responsible for arming the snipers also are held accountable. This includes the gun store from which the assault rifle used in the shootings mysteriously disappeared, along with 238 other guns over the last 3 years alone. These are guns whose intended purpose is to kill other human beings. If H.R. 1036 is enacted into law, the families of the sniper victims will be thrown out of court without a hearing. Given the suffering experienced by gun violence victims, it is unconscionable for the gun lobby to call their efforts to obtain justice frivolous. Gun violence victims seeking their day in court have based their lawsuits on long- standing rights well established in our Nation's common law. In addition to the civil lawsuits brought by the families of the sniper victims, another part of the fight to obtain justice for gun violence victims includes the NAACP's current legal action against firearms manufacturers and dealers who have facilitated the supply of hand guns to an unlawful underground market. Gun violence is the number one killer of African Americans ages 15 to 24. And though African Americans represent 13 percent of the total U.S. population, they account for the majority of gun homicides. The legal remedy being sought by the NAACP does not involve damages, but rather calls on the gun industry to behave responsibly. In the words of a New York Times editorial, ``Under cover of war, the domestic gun industry is prodding Congress to anoint it as the ``arsenal of democracy'' by enacting a disastrous bill to give gun makers and dealers unprecedented protection from liability suits by State and local governments and victims of gun violence. ``The passage of this bill would do nothing for average gun owners. What the sudden pressure to get it through Congress makes clear is that the gun lobby, while theoretically concerned with the right to bear arms, is chiefly worried about protecting the right to make money off of them.'' We, the representatives of the people, not the special interests, should reject this legislation which would undermine the legal rights of individuals and communities and provide unwarranted special immunity for the firearm industry. Let us do the right thing. Let us vote this bill down.