Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member on our Committee on Appropriations for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to this amendment, but I certainly understand where the distinguished Member from California is coming from. But in a bill that includes $7.5 billion in direct assistance and authorization for another $19.5 billion in guaranteed loans with the full faith and credit of the United States behind them, Turkey needs to be part of this package. They are too strategically an important ally not to be because they are a member of NATO, they border Iraq and Iran. They are, in fact, cooperating in our battle with Iraq, with Saddam Hussein more than with the Iraqi people. But if we are going to be successful in a long-term war of winning over the hearts and minds of the Islamic people, more than 1 billion people throughout the world, that is where we need Turkey the most, to move this world in the direction of democracy, of free enterprise, and of individual rights. Turkey is a secular society and a truly democratic electoral system, and we cannot have it both ways. We cannot urge countries throughout the world to in fact democratize their political system, but then when they do not act according to our will but rather reflect the will of their people, we reject it and we want to hold back money. We cannot do that. We cannot have it both ways in Turkey or any other country; and that is really what this is all about. When 90 percent of the Turkish people are opposed to the war in Iraq, of course 90 percent of the Turkish people are Islamic, it is perhaps understandable; but we ought to respect that and respect Turkish leaders and work with them. Turkey needs to be a member of the European Union. One of the reasons they are held back is because of corruption, which at least has been endemic in Turkey, and human rights abuses. We need to use this money, in my opinion, as leverage in advancing America's priorities, the priorities of the American people in terms of human rights and democratization. There is a woman by the name of Leyla Zana, for example, who goes on trial today. She has been in prison for 11 years. When she was inaugurated a duly elected member of parliament, she made a speech urging that the Kurdish minority work with the Turkish majority in a more integrated and peaceful society. That is a tinderbox in Turkey. Turkey needs to work with the Kurdish minority. Many of us were concerned about the Turkish military going into the northern part of Iraq into the Kurdish zone for fear they might attempt a military occupation. Turkey needs to understand that we provide this money, but we expect them to integrate the Kurdish people within their entire society and, in fact, their economy. So that is our objective, advancing America's priorities; and America's priorities are more consistent with Turkey's long-term priorities than many of the countries that we are providing aid to today. So I urge the Members of this Congress to support the $1 billion and in fact the additional $8.5 billion in guaranteed loans for Turkey, but then not to shrug our shoulders and turn our back but to work with those in the Turkish society and in politics who want to modernize Turkey, to enable it to become a member of the European Union, a bridge between East and West and one of the shining examples that democracy can work and human rights can be observed throughout the Islamic world. I urge defeat of the amendment for that reason, but I congratulate the Member for raising the issue.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions of BWUFA, Black Women United For Action. Over the course of their 17 year history, BWUFA has been an outspoken voice for the concerns of women, the impoverished, and vulnerable families throughout the world. As a volunteer, non-profit community service organization based in Springfield, Virginia, BWUFA has continued to successfully provide a variety of community programs that offer support services with a social, cultural and educational focus. As BWUFA volunteers will attest, there is no price that can be placed on the gifts of love, compassion and caring from one person to another. This is the guiding philosophy that drives BWUFA to help make the world a better place for tomorrow's leaders. They consider it both a distinct pleasure and an obligation to touch the lives of others for the improvement of our community. One of BWUFA's major efforts is to readily disseminate pertinent information to the public through forums such as their Roundtable Discussions. From talking about healthy living initiatives to the need for solid investment strategies, BWUFA provides these mediated conversations to encourage critical thinking on complex issues that affect us all. It is through this exchange of ideas in a relaxed setting that many can develop plans to radically alter their lives for the better. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have had the opportunity of working closely with this valuable organization in the past and look forward to continued interaction in the future. BWUFA sets the example as a model organization striving to improve the lives of others everyday. I salute their stewardship and wish them the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the invocation, the prayer for today, was delivered by Sister Benedict Kesock. Sister Benedict is a Benedictine Sister. She entered the Order in 1954, and for the last 29 years she has been at St. Charles School in Arlington, Virginia, 27 of those years as principal. She has served under nine pastors and three bishops. She has trained all of them and probably outlived most of them all. Sister Benedict is an institution at St. Charles and in Arlington County, Virginia. She has dedicated her life to God and served God by teaching and inspiring and mentoring her students. It has been a labor of love the entire time, and it has been reciprocated. In 1999, we thought we were going to lose Sister. She went to Arlington Hospital. They would not operate; they did not think it was worth it. So she went to Washington Hospital Center and got a six-way heart bypass in 1999, a six-way bypass. And she is still ticking, as you can see. She believes there must have been some reason that God saw to keep her with us. This institution is terribly proud to have had Sister Benedict give us the invocation today. Her life is a testament to her faith. She gave us one little story that I think some of you who may have been educated in Catholic schools might relate to. A former male student of hers was driving by the school where there is a lot of new construction going on. They were building a new center. There was an enormous construction hole in the ground. So one of the thousands of boys she straightened out, after seeing it, called her on his car phone to tell her, ``Sister, I didn't do it.'' Those of you who are listening may be able to relate to that feeling. The fact is, Sister Benedict did do it. She has helped build a school, the new St. Charles Center and a community of faith in Northern Virginia. She has taught and inspired hundreds of students every year for nearly 30 years. She is what makes this country run so well. Sister Benedict, thank you for everything you have contributed throughout your life; and thank you for giving us the prayer this morning.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Joyce Williams upon her retirement after 37 years of service in the federal government. During her accomplished career, Ms. Williams distinguished herself by aggressively taking on every task assigned and assuming the many associated responsibilities. She consistently exhibited willingness to work as a team player and assumed leadership responsibilities for the good of the Agency. Beginning her career as a Procurement Clerk at the Defense General Supply Center in Richmond, Virginia, Ms. Williams steadily rose through the ranks till she assumed her current position as Chief of Congressional Affairs Office at the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). During her tenure as Chief, Ms. Williams innumerable responsibilities included, but were not limited to, managing the liaison operations between DLA and Capitol Hill, monitoring the day-to-day operations of the Congressional Affairs Team, and overseeing the Congressional Hearings process. On January 26, 2001, the Defense Logistics Agency Headquarters Complex at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, was officially named the Defense Logistics Agency Andrew T. McNamara Complex, a tribute to the Agency's first Director, Lieutenant General Andrew T. McNamara, (Retired). Ms. Williams worked many long hours in conjunction with myself and my staff to enable a special exception to existing law. Buildings on military installations are traditionally named for distinguished individuals, but only posthumously. Due to Ms. Williams diligence, I was able to include language in the fiscal year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act that made the name change. Throughout her career, Joyce has been rewarded and recognized for her exceptional abilities and sustained the highest level of performance receiving numerous, and letters of appreciation. Joyce's achievements over the course of her 37 year career have been of the quality and level that are clearly deserving of the DLA Distinguished Career Service Award. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to pay tribute to Ms. Williams' lifetime of distinguished service.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the very distinguished ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Budget for his tireless work in putting together a responsible budget. We did not have a lot to work with, Mr. Chairman, because the other side has already taken nearly $2 trillion off the table in the tax cuts they have already enacted. That is why we could not come up with a budget that was responsible last year. We have come up with a budget this year that is the best that America can do under the circumstances. Let me compare the two budgets. In the first place, in our budget, the Democrats achieve a balanced budget by 2010, 2 years earlier than the Republican budget. More importantly, Republicans incur $821 billion more of public debt than the Democratic budget. Which is the party of fiscal responsibility? The Democratic budget has a fair, a fast-acting, and a fiscally responsible stimulus. None of these criteria is true for the Republican so-called economic growth package. In fact, less than 5 percent of the Republican economic growth package even occurs this year, when we are in a recession, when we need the stimulus. It does not happen. Yet our budget costs one-sixth as much as the Republican so-called economic growth package. We have $136 billion going straight into the economy this year, as opposed to only $42 billion from the Republican budget. This is what people want to know. What is the budget going to do for me and my family? How is it going to help me get a job and be able to contribute back to this economy? The Bipartisan Joint Economic Committee says that, in fact, the Democratic economic stimulus package, at one-sixth the cost, would generate 1,122,000 more jobs; the Republican budget half as much. For one-sixth the cost we generate twice as many jobs. Many people have talked about the Medicare prescription drug issue. I think as people look at the Republican plan, they are going to see this is not an acceptable plan. We have a plan that, in fact, will provide prescription drug benefits to people who truly need them at a cost they can afford. The last major area where we have a vastly different budget policy is in what we call nondefense domestic discretionary spending. That is the American people would take the big hit under the Republican budget. The President's budget already cut over $100 billion from the current services level over the next decade. This budget comes in and doubles that, $265 billion coming from the current services level right now. What does that mean? Let us go beyond the numbers. Let us look at the faces, the faces of the people that deserve and need help, veterans, poor mothers and kids on Medicaid, students' loans, retirees' pension cuts. This is what we are going to hear about in the debate. This is what is important. Pass the Democrat's budget proposal.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, as we speak, the House Committee on the Budget is marking up a budget resolution for this coming fiscal year. President Bush has proposed a budget that is $304 billion in deficit, the biggest deficit ever submitted. And do you know, there is not one dime in that budget for waging war with Iraq, let alone any of the reconstruction costs that are necessary. If you look out for the next 10 years, President Bush is suggesting that we should accumulate deficits of over $5 trillion. Halfway through this next decade in 2008, the baby boom generation starts to retire, thereby doubling the number of people dependent upon Social Security and Medicare. Yet all of this $5 trillion in deficit is going to have to be borrowed from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, and there is not one dime for Iraq or for any of the other domestic priorities. Think about the fact that this budget means that Veterans Administration hospitals will be able to treat 168,000 fewer veterans, that we will have to eliminate education for homeless children and after-school care. Take a look at this budget and cry.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, one hundred years ago this month President Teddy Roosevelt set forth a vision and created a program to preserve unique and endangered species and the critical habitat they needed to survive. Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge was the first of what are now 540 refuges and thousands of small prairie wetlands managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. From that first refuge, there are now more than 95 million acres of protected habitat across the United States. Looking back over the past 100 years, much has changed. The United States has transformed from an agrarian to a predominately urban, and now suburban society. Today, many of these refuges have become islands surrounded by human development and infrastructure. The wildlife they preserve, the species they protect have truly become refugees from an outside world, dominated by human interaction and presence. Will they survive the next 100 years? I would like to think so. As we move forward, we are developing a stronger appreciation of what we have already lost and what more we must preserve. The Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge, which was once in my congressional district, is relatively new. It was established in response to the near extinction of America's most prized symbol of freedom and independence, the American bald eagle. The return of the bald eagles and their subsequent recovery is a great success. I am proud of my support for the National Wildlife Refuge system and particularly proud of the collaborative efforts I and my colleagues in Congress and at the local level made to protect more than 800 acres of environmentally sensitive land at Meadowood Farms that is adjacent to Mason Neck Refuge from development. We are still at the early stages of learning how conservation and preservation must work over the long term to ensure a species survival. Conservation measures must be practiced not just on the refuges but outside the refuges as well. Biological corridors linking protected areas and critical habitat must be expanded; environmental hazards controlled; and a better understanding of how human interaction affects wildlife must be appreciated. As time marches forward, I am optimistic that this same ethic that led to the creation of the first refuge multiplies with each new generation to ensure that the refuges of tomorrow and the year 2103 succeed at preserving what we hold dear today.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support for this substitute amendment. Embryonic stem cell use is necessary in discovering the causes of a myriad of genetic diseases, to testing new drug therapies more efficiently on laboratory tissue instead of human volunteers, and to staving off the ravages of disease with the regeneration of our bodies' essential organs. Contrary to what opponents have been saying, this substitute does not give a green light to individuals and companies who perform human somatic cell nuclear transfer. It requires them to register with the Food and Drug Administration which will act as an independent oversight committee. The Greenwood substitute formalizes in law what is already being practiced across this Nation. If the underlying bill instead of the substitute passes, it will represent a triumph for ideological special interests over the public interest, because the public interest is best served when the medical and the scientific community is free to exercise their professional judgment in extending and enhancing human life.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, there are so many reasons why these tax cuts that have been proposed in the President's budget are irresponsible. One of them, obviously, is the fact that just as the budget deficits and the public debt balloons in 2008 and thereafter is when the baby boom generation, our generation, starts to retire. So we are no longer making money, helping to solve the problem; we become the problem. When I say ``we,'' I refer to the fact that most of the Members of Congress are members of the baby boom generation. We are going to double the retirement numbers, and yet what we would be doing with this tax cut is to use every last dime of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds to pay for these tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, $4.4 trillion over the next decade. That is the first element of irresponsibility. Second, of course, is that we do not know what the costs are really going to be from other parts of the budget. We had an analysis in The New York Times yesterday. They consulted the Congressional Budget Office, any number of distinguished economists, all of the best sources, to figure out what might be the cost of war in Iraq and of fulfilling the responsibilities that the President said that he would make us responsible for once we go in. They estimated the costs would be between $100 billion and roughly $569 billion. The point is, we do not know what the cost is, yet we are going to go ahead with these tax cuts when we do not know how much money we are going to have available. So we have no idea how much we are going to be borrowing from the next generation. The third that has been aptly discussed is the fact that the money is going to the very wealthiest people in this country, the people who needed the tax cut the least and who are the least likely to spend it immediately to stimulate the economy. So it does not make a whole lot of economic sense when what we are really trying to do is to pull this country out of a lingering recession. The last issue that I would like to address is some of the foregone alternatives that are caused as a result of the tax cut. Today we heard from the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The administration has a prescription drug plan. They are touting it. They should be ashamed of it, because the fact is that it is woefully inadequate. Medicare beneficiaries are going to spend more than $1.8 trillion on prescription drugs over the next 10 years, and even if every dollar of the President's proposal went to our prescription drug coverage, which it will not, there is really only about $300 billion that actually goes to covering prescription drugs, the plan would only cover 22 percent of beneficiaries' medication needs. Seniors who spend more than $5,500 of their own money would get only 20 percent reimbursement for their drug costs. But it seems to me that when we look at a plan like this, we really ought to consider what we get as Members of Congress, and there is where the deficiency is most pronounced. The President wants seniors to pay a $275 deductible each year. Most Members of Congress pay no deductible. The President wants seniors to pay 50 percent coinsurance for the first $3,000. Members of Congress only pay 25 percent. The President wants seniors to have a gap in coverage where they pay 100 percent of the cost when their need is between $3,000 and roughly $7,000. Most Members of Congress have no gaps in prescription drug coverage, and yet the administration says that they want it modeled after the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. Mr. Speaker, it is not just the prescription drug coverage that is going to be necessarily inadequate. The Medicaid program is going to be capped with block grants. We look at programs like housing programs, HOPE 6 that the President has touted and, in fact, HOPE 6 is eliminated in this budget. This budget cuts education, it cuts 36,000 seniors from Meals-on-Wheels, not to mention No Child Left Behind which was the President's principal domestic initiative, and it is $619 million less than what is needed just to offset inflation. I could go down a long list. I am not going to do that. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the President's budget and the President's economic plan does the American people an injustice. It needs to be defeated.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the biggest problem with the tax cut that President Bush has proposed is not that it is going to require over $4 trillion in lost Federal revenue over the next decade, it is not that it is going to create more than a $2 trillion deficit, and it is not that the majority of it is going to go to those who need it the least, the biggest problem is that we do not know what the cost of the war is. We have gone down this road before and we wound up quadrupling the public debt. The responsible thing to do is to hold off on tax cuts until we know what the cost of this conflict in Iraq will amount to, until we have some sense of how long we are going to have to stay there, until we have some sense of what it will cost to reconstruct that country, until we have some sense of what it will cost to establish a stable democracy before we get out of there and allow it to return to the kind of despotic leadership that it is subject to today. So let us be prudent. Let us hold off on tax cuts. If we must, we should proceed with a prudent foreign policy with regard to the Middle East. Let us rid the world of weapons of mass destruction to the extent we can do so, but let us not break the bank in the United States and pass the bill on to our children. Let us be prudent and fiscally responsible. Let us put off tax cuts until we know what kind of expense we are undertaking with regard to the war in Iraq.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life's work of a retired American diplomat and longtime Alexandria, VA resident Omero Sabatini. Mr. Sabatini's crowning achievement is his modem translation of Italy's most treasured novel, I Promessi Sposi, or Promise of Fidelity, written by Italy's foremost novelist Alessandro Manzoni. With extensive experience in promoting intercultural relations and translating from and into Italian, Mr. Sabatini has interpreted at the highest levels of government in both the United States and Europe, and has published numerous booklets, articles and human-interest stories in both English and Italian. He is active in several Italian-American organizations and is a member of a number of associations of retired U.S. Foreign Service Officers. Born in Indiana, Mr. Sabatini lived in Italy from the age of three until his early twenties. He attended Italian high schools, and it was there that he became an admirer of Italian literature and all things Italian. He devoted most of his professional life to promoting U.S. exports, but in retirement chose to spend a large share of his time translating this Italian literary masterpiece. He undertook this task as an act of love, and out of a desire to make this great Italian classic better known in the United States and other parts of the English-speaking world. When the novel that he has translated was first published in its original Italian, Edgar Allan Poe, and the great German poet, Johann Wolfgang Goethe, praised it enthusiastically. Sir Walter Scott called it the ``greatest romance of modem times,'' and Giuseppe Verdi, who composed his Requiem Mass to honor Manzoni's memory, thought that it was one of the greatest books ever written. This novel is also included in the original Harvard Classics series, under the old English title, ``The Betrothed''. Throughout the years, several attempts have been made to translate this novel into English, but most of them have failed to capture the intensity and vividness of Manzoni's imagination. Mr. Sabatini's work, however, has been highly praised and admired by scholars from prestigious universities and other institutions of higher learning. Though set in 17th century northern Italy, ``Promise of Fidelity'' is a timeless and universal tale that touches on every human feeling, passion and behavior. It tells the story of two young fiances separated by the events that marked Europe's dramatic political and social scene. I concur with the vast majority of experts who feel that this novel is required reading for anyone interested in learning about Italian and world literature, but also those intrigued with how Italian social, intellectual, and artistic patrimony has helped shape our own American culture and our outlook on life. I salute Mr. Sabatini's work, as it will continue to provide learned enjoyment for many generations to come.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of a hometown hero, Dr. David Brown from Arlington, Virginia. His abundant passion for life and fearless pursuit of the farthest frontiers of space will serve as an inspiration for generations to come. A graduation of Yorktown High School in Arlington, David's educational path led him to the College of William and Mary, where he received his Bachelor of Science degree in biology. With an unquenchable thirst for knowledge and understanding of the world around him, David entered Eastern Virginia Medical School, earning his doctorate in 1982. David then heeded the call to service of his country by joining the Navy. For over a decade, David was a highly respected flight surgeon and became the first of his rank selected for pilot training. Driven by his childhood dream to fly, David graduated first in his flight class. Over the course of his exemplary medical military career, he piloted A- 60 Intruders, F-18 Hornets, and T-38 Talons. Not content to remain constricted beneath the blanket of Earth's atmosphere, David continued venturing where many have dreamed but few have ever gone. His acceptance of an invitation to join NASA in April of 1996 began a dramatic new chapter in David's life. Stationed at Johnson Space Center in Texas and at Patuxent Naval Air Station in St. Mary's County, Maryland, he trained for 7 years in anticipation of what would be the greatest and final thrill of his daring and accomplished life. On February 1, 2003, David Brown and the crew of the Space Shuttle Columbia were tragically lost during reentry. But these brave souls in no way died in vain. Their memory will not be forgotten as space travel continues to break new boundaries in the exploration of the heavens. Current astronauts and those of tomorrow are reminded of the risks they assume, but in that knowledge lies an ironclad certainty that this is a mission that must continue for the betterment of all mankind.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of the Ferris Foundation and the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education for understanding the importance of international education programs. In 1989, Dr. Richard Ferris created the Ferris Foundation for Graduate Education, Inc. to nurture the strong bonds between the people and institutions of the United States and Ireland. Since the beginning, the Ferris Foundation has invested resources in the creation of academic projects providing postgraduate education to outstanding scholars of both countries. Over the years, the Ferris Foundation has brought excellent young scholars from universities in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to the United States for advanced studies in management and finance. Last year, the Ferris Foundation and the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education embarked on a partnership to give both African-American and Irish students an opportunity to learn about the Irish and African-American cultures that exist in their respective countries. The rector of the university system in Ireland worked with Dr. Ferris and the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education to facilitate the implementation of this innovative program. The Association identified a number of scholarly and well-rounded students from some of the most prestigious African-American universities. The four students who were selected for graduate study in Ireland include: James Keeton of Albany State; Akisha Campbell of Florida A & M University; Joseph Easter of Jackson State University and Keisha Senter of Florida A & M University. These four distinguished scholars will experience Irish culture through a planned program of graduate study and through employment in an American corporation in Ireland. This unique project not only provides each participant with a superior graduate education but also an introductory employment experience and a perspective on American culture seen through their new ``Irish eyes.'' I wish the Ferris Foundation and the Republic of Ireland and the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education well as they continue on the path of fostering cultural exchange and embodying the motto of the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education in ``Keeping the Doors of Opportunity Open.''

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the principal thing that people are talking about, particularly the President of this country, is a $600 billion economic stimulus plan. Yet here we are at the same time debating whether we should help a million families whose breadwinner has been out of work, who has been searching for work, whether we should provide them 38 percent of the income that they had been getting from their job to put food on the table for their families. And if we do not extend this, what happens to those families? Think about the faces behind the statistics. They stop payment on their mortgage. They have to pull their kids out of college. All kinds of suffering we cannot imagine. Yet we can put up $600 billion in tax cuts instead of providing five percent of that amount for people who would spend that money immediately. Any economic stimulus needs to be fast acting, it needs to be fiscally responsible, and it needs to be fair. What could be fairer than providing the unemployment insurance for those people who have exhausted their benefits? All we asked for was an opportunity to vote on whether or not we could and should do that. We were denied that opportunity to vote. We are going to vote for extending unemployment insurance for the part of the people who will be helped by this, but it is not the population that needs it the most. That is what we should be doing today, providing economic stimulus to the people who need it the most, who have been hard working, who are suffering because we have the highest unemployment rate we have had for 9 years, who cannot find a job. So let us let them keep being able to feed their families, keep their homes until they find that job, until the economy recovers.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the accomplishments of Dr. William Claiborn during his 21 years of outstanding and dedicated service as Executive Director of the Alexandria Community Services Board and Director of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse. Over the course of his career, Dr. Claiborn has taken the Alexandria Community Services Board from an organization of four facilities to a nationally recognized provider serving over 4,000 Alexandrians in 63 facilities. Under his dynamic leadership, the Community Services Board has made many tremendous accomplishments. From creating a nationally recognized Sober Living Unit at the Alexandria Detention Center to establishing the Parent-Infant Education Program that assists infants with developmental disabilities and their families, Dr. Claiborn has consistently gone above and beyond the call of duty to help others. Dr. Claiborn's extraordinary commitment to improving the lives of his fellow Alexandrians, Virginians and Americans suffering from mental health problems; mental retardation and substance abuse has been a true blessing to those in need. His work in partnering with state and regional leaders led to the development of new Medicaid rules in 1989, representing a major positive change in social policy. Dr. Claiborn also spearheaded a regional cooperative effort to provide funding and carry out the discharge of people from state hospitals into the care of the Community Services Boards, where they would receive better treatment and higher quality care. Mr. Speaker, it is with the greatest pleasure that I recognize Dr. Claiborn today. He is a brilliant and exceptionally compassionate public servant who has devoted his life to the betterment of our society and the people of Alexandria, Virginia, a city in which he has long served. The benefits of Dr. Claiborn's tireless efforts on behalf of the less fortunate will resonate not only in the present, but throughout Alexandria's history for decades to come.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Utah for yielding to me. I knew Wayne, particularly having had the opportunity to travel to the Middle East with him, and one thing that struck anyone who got to know him was how profoundly proud he was of having served in this institution. He served as an aide to Bobby Kennedy and to others. He worked in a number of political campaigns. Politics was his life. But he saw politics as an instrument to do good, to make lasting and positive change. His colleagues from Utah have talked about the environmental progress that he was able to achieve. He did any number of things in bringing diverse groups together. But I have to believe as his lifelong career pursuit, at least the latter part of his life, was dedicated to bringing about peace in the Middle East. He founded the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation. He took a great many risks, not just personally and politically, but even physically. He had tremendous courage. That courage came from the personal belief in what he was doing. He put his own safety far below the importance of what he knew needed to be done in bringing about peace and reconciliation in one of the world's most conflicted parts. He found ways to build bridges. He loved people on both sides and found that commonality and worked on that commonality. And I want to quote from somebody that not only founded the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation but was a very close friend of Wayne's, an intimate friend of Wayne's. They shared objectives. They loved each other. And that is Danny Abraham. Danny sent out a letter from the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation. I want to quote from it. He says with regard to Wayne, ``He was respected, loved and cherished by all who knew him. Wayne's single-minded devotion to continued dialogue and peace between Israelis and Arabs in the Middle East, even in the most challenging of circumstances, gave us the hope and courage we could have never found on our own. Wayne never faltered from his dream that one day Israelis and Arabs would live in peace and he had the magic, the gift of nurturing that dream in everyone he met. My beloved friend Wayne was a true servant of peace and he lived and died serving humanity. May Wayne Owens' life, his dedication and belief in us not be wasted. Together we must recommit ourselves to the pursuit of peace.'' That will be Wayne's legacy, to help us recommit ourselves in the pursuit of the noblest objectives that he committed his life to. Again I want to thank my friend and colleague from Utah (Mr. Cannon). Let us memorialize Wayne in the actions that we take to further the vision that he had for peace, not only in the Middle East but throughout the world.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit a recent speech delivered by the President of the Population Institute, Mr. Werner Fornos, at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia on October 1, 2002. Mr. Fornos spoke to the rapidly growing economic and environmental pressures created by our burgeoning world population, especially in third world countries. These concerns represent a pressing issue for congressional debate and I offer these remarks to that end. Remarks by Werner Fornos, President of the Population Institute, at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, VA. October 1, 2002 World population stands today at more than 6.2 billion and increases by more than 75 million each year. An incredible 97 per cent of this growth occurs in the developing world, by definition the poorest countries of the world--those where for far too many daily living is a struggle for mere survival. These are the very countries least able to afford such massive influxes of people, countries where demographic pressures already place unbelievable burdens on schools, hospitals, transportation and virtually all facets of the economic and social infrastructure. Yet our soaring human numbers are projected to exceed 9 billion by the year 2050. While the wealthiest countries on our planet are estimated to account for only 52 million of this increase, the developing world is expected to account for 2.7 billion. But world population does not need to continue to grow at this dizzying pace. First though, I must tell you that no matter what corrective course we may steer, the earth's population will reach 8 billion. The reason is our built-in demographic momentum: there are one billion people today between the ages of 15 and 24, the largest number of people entering their reproductive years at the same time than at any other time in the history of the world. How can we hold the number of people on earth down to approximately 8 billion? The answer to that question lies with providing access to voluntary family planning for the more than 300 million couples in the world who today want to make their own decisions about when and if they will have children--couples who in many cases did not want their last child and do not want another. Accommodating these couples, however, is another matter that has been complicated by the anti-abortion movement. Let me say here that the Population Institute is passionately dedicated to providing access to family planning information, means and services; we do not consider abortion to be a method of family planning. As a matter of fact, abortion is a procedure to which many women resort who lack access to family planning. However, a sizable contingent of those who have the audacity to label themselves ``pro-life'' because they oppose abortion have become perhaps the single greatest obstacle to those 300 million-plus women obtaining family planning. If you want to prevent abortion, the first line of defense is preventing pregnancy. And that is what family planning is about: preventing pregnancies, not terminating them. And if the Bush administration is serious about being ``prolife,'' it should be promoting family planning--not signing executive orders that cut off the congressionally approved $34 million United States contribution to the United Nations Population Fund, the largest multilateral provider of international population assistance, as the President has. But the obstacles to universal access to family planning are not solely within the anti-abortion movement. Population policy today is a matter of failure, ignorance, and timidity. Last month I was in Johannesburg, South Africa, attending the World Summit on Sustainable Development--the most important global meeting on environment and development since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Oddly, population growth had no place on the official agenda. But there can be no doubt that population and sustainable development are inexorably linked. After all, we live in a world where 70 percent of all families are dependent on firewood as their primary source of heating and cooking fuel. A world where 600,000 square miles of forest have been cut down worldwide, just over the past 10 years. A world where forestland equivalent to three times the size of Belgium is annually cut down in the Congo Basin alone. Though there were some achievements at the Johannesburg summit, it was seriously flawed by the neglect to link human growth with environmental well being in the face of economic growth. The Johannesburg summit succeeded in establishing clearly important time-tables for pressing matters, such as: halving the number of people living in poverty who lack access to clean water and adequate sanitation by 2015; restoring depleted fish stocks by 2015; and significantly reducing the extinction rate of the world's plant and animal life by 2010. I seriously question, however, how any one of these obviously significant and desirable targets can be reached until we, first and foremost, establish a crystal clear accelerated target for providing voluntary family planning and reproductive health care to those more than 300 million who need and want fewer children but lack the information, education and the affordable means to control their own fertility. The Johannesburg summit was not a failure; I believe that so long as nations of the world continue to discuss relevant issues at very least it achieves the opportunity for mutual understanding and mutual respect. But I also believe that much more could have been accomplished had the meeting not been bogged down in coddling the comfortable and ignoring the afflicted. Considering the political climate, especially in the United States, at the time of the WSSD, many feel that population stabilization advocates should count themselves fortunate that the summit reaffirmed the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) Plan of Action, as well as the results of the 1999 ICPD+5 meeting and the Millennium Development Goals--all of which had important population policy and program recommendations. In hindsight, this appears to be true enough. Yet while reaffirmations are not insignificant, in my view summit meetings should be about more than acknowledgments of what already has been approved. They should focus on progress: developing new strategies to attain established goals and objectives, where they are needed, and accelerating efforts to reach these goals and objectives, where it is applicable. It is in these areas where, as far as world population issues arc concerned, the WSSD was disappointing. In addition to squandering an opportunity to accelerate progress on universal access to family planning, the Johannesburg summit failed to establish a target for vastly reducing the carbon emissions responsible for global warming and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power. We know that the planet in many respects has an impressive capacity for resilience. Some years back British scientists reported that the ozone layer--the protective shield that prevents ultra-violet B rays from devastating the earth with skin cancer--was thinning in the southern hemisphere and had virtually disappeared over Antarctica, the world. For years, industries producing chlorofluorocarbons influenced industrialized countries responsible for most of the emissions to forego becoming involved in an effort to prevent such emissions. But with new and compelling scientific evidence before the world, nations hastened to approve the Montreal Protocol, phasing out CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals by 1996. Within recent weeks, it has been reported that the shield is thickening at a pace that might close the 10,000 square mile hole in the layer over Antarctica within 50 years. I am convinced we can have similar success in overall sustainable development, if we have the foresight and the courage to establish rational and effective timetables. The timetable for reducing world population growth to a figure closer to 8 billion rather than 9 billion would specifying dates for: Widening women's educational opportunities--at all levels, primary, secondary and higher education. In country after country studies, show that the more education a woman has the more likely she is to have only the number of children she can nurture and educate; Increasing employment opportunities for women. Studies also show that when women have income-generating employment, they are likely to have fewer children; Reduction of infant and child mortality. A major factor contributing to larger family size in many developing countries is that infant and child survival is precarious at best. Couples frequently have six, seven or eight children in the hope that one, two, or three will survive. With adequate prenatal and postnatal care, infant and child mortality can be vastly reduced. Universal access to family planning information, education, and the affordable means to practice it. Some years back, World Bank President Robert McNamara said in a celebrated speech at Notre Dame University that time lost in the effort to reduce rampant population growth can never be recovered. I believe that rapid population growth is a problem the entire world must address. Failure to do so would be the ultimate global blunder, one from which there is no recovery.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) has mentioned all of the specifics of Terry Morris' life, I would just add that he is a constituent of mine. I am proud that is the case. But in so many ways, he is a constituent of this entire United States Congress. This is where he chose to spend most of his life, 33 years. Imagine, he has been up there for 33 years, 16 years as Assistant Clerk, and the last 17 as the Chief Tally Clerk. As our colleague just stated, we take it for granted, every time we pass in that vote, Terry is smiling. He is looking professional. He is even looking alert. Here it is after midnight, and he is still smiling and looking alert. I do not know that we can do it. He does it day in and day out in such a way that we take it for granted. That is the kind of professionalism that the American public counts on. When they have seen him on C-SPAN, I know he has just been sort of part of the institution, but the people listening in and who may one day read the Congressional Record ought to know that in many ways there is no more prized servant of the American people than Terry Morris has proven himself to be. And so for the person you are and for what you have contributed to this institution, Terry, we will forever be grateful. Thank you.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the very distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation on several grounds. Up until now, this proposal has been heavy on message but troubling in its substance. Unlike the rhetoric, approval of this legislation will have some real consequences for the Federal agencies we are about to reshuffle, the 170,000 Federal employees who work for these affected agencies, and the American people. Its origins are telling. You may recall that the Office of Homeland Security was created by an executive order on October 8, 2001. Unfortunately its director, Governor Ridge, was barred by the President from testifying before Congress, overruled in White House councils, and preempted by more powerful Cabinet members. Then as public opinion began to sour against an administration that refused to even let Governor Ridge testify in public before the Congress, the administration reversed itself and after some reshuffling of Federal agencies on chalkboards in the basement of the White House, the administration proposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Defense. It is a clever proposal, but it is not the solution. We are in a war against a new and deadly threat, and we need the resources abroad both for our diplomats to build alliances and for our armed services to prosecute this war. And at home we need the resources to protect our citizens. If we were serious about this threat, we would see a budget. But we just passed another continuing resolution that keeps everything funded at spending levels that were proposed and approved more than 18 months ago, a budget developed before September 11, 2001. Where is the money for first responders? $2.6 billion is what is needed and what the President's party just voted against this afternoon. Where is the money for the Transportation Security Administration, which assumed responsibility for airport security in just 6 days, on November 19? Where is the money to improve border security or hire more FBI agents? It is not there because we have not passed the fiscal 2003 appropriation bills, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has made clear. Instead, we are now considering a proposal to incorporate 22 existing Federal agencies and transfer more than 170,000 Federal employees. I am not sure that consolidating Federal agencies is sufficient to address the challenges that confront us. The difficulty in stitching together vast and disparate organizational cultures has overwhelmed some of the best CEOs in the private sector. It is a process that most CEOs will tell you takes years to complete and more resources than previously assumed. CBO estimates it will take 5 to 10 years to get this new agency up and running. This effort is going to divert us from the important task of protecting this Nation from possible future attacks. It may strengthen the lines of communication and accountability, but it does not provide the resources to get the job done. The bipartisan Commission on National Security found that the Customs Service, the Border Patrol, and the Coast Guard were all on the verge of being overwhelmed by a mismatch between their growing duties and their mostly static resources. There are less than 7,000 customs inspectors and 619 canine officers to screen thousands of cargo containers and hundreds of thousands of vehicles entering the United States every day. Historically, most of these agencies have been starved of the resources they need to effectively carry out their mission. With 170,000 civil servants, they are going to have difficulty establishing a coherent and effective mission. To be successful, we need to offer superior resources, equipment, and training. The workforce has to be given the incentive and expectation to improve performance. At a minimum, the new Department ought to be able to offer its employees pay parity and benefits. These adjustments are certain to add additional costs. So why is the White House not asking for passage of the 2003 budget? That is what the White House ought to be asking us to do. The only response we have heard is that this reshuffling of agencies is going to be budget neutral. It raises more questions than it answers. How are the agencies going to respond to programs that have nothing to do with homeland security? The Coast Guard's role in maritime safety and FEMA's role in national disasters are just a couple of examples. The CIA, the FBI and other intelligence agencies, they are the ones that are going to be gathering data. There is no access to raw data that these intelligence agencies monitor on the part of the Department of Homeland Security. I do not think this is a good proposal. It ought to be opposed. We ought to come up with something better, and we ought to give what is better the resources necessary to carry out their function.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, a little more than a year after the assaults on New York and Washington, we are still in a heightened state of concern about the safety of our Nation. With the bill we pass today, H.R. 3253, the Department of Veterans Affairs Emergency Preparedness Act of 2002, strengthens the role of the Department of Veterans Affairs to protect the people of the United States from terrorists, particularly bio-terrorism threats such as last year's anthrax attacks in Washington, New York, New Jersey and Florida. We must be proactive in preparing the United States for a future terrorist attack. As Vice President Cheney cautioned this year, ``The prospects of a future attack against the United States are almost certain. Not a matter of it, but when. It could happen tomorrow, it could happen next week, it could happen next year, but they will keep trying.'' We must respond in an effective and comprehensive manner to protect the American people when an attack occurs. This bill would help do just that. Under this bill, four geographically separated National Medical Emergency Preparedness Centers would be established. Each center would study and develop treatments for human exposure to chemical, biological, explosive and nuclear substances that may be used as weapons of mass destruction. The Department of Veterans Affairs is a good host for such a new and important mission. In addition to its medical care mission to care for millions of veterans, the veterans health care system is the nation's largest provider of graduate medical education and is a major contributor to biomedical and other scientific research. Because of its widely dispersed, integrated health care system, VA is an essential asset in responding to national, regional and local emergencies. The VA is an integral part of the Federal Response Plan, and an important local resource in natural disasters. This bill strengthens VA's role as a helping agency in such events, and particularly those that may be caused in the future by those bent on destruction of freedom and the American way of life. Not only would the four emergency preparedness centers conduct research and develop detection, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment methods; but they would also be charged as clearinghouses to disseminate the information to other public and private health care providers, to improve the quality of care for patients who may be exposed to deadly chemicals or radiation. In addition, our bill would also require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a program to develop and disseminate model education and training programs for medical response to terrorist activities. VA's infrastructure, which includes affiliations with over 107 medical schools, and other schools of health professions, would prepare current and future medical professionals in this country to be knowledgeable and medically competent in the treatment of casualties from terrorist attacks. In my home state, the University of Kansas School of Medicine currently partners with 4 Veterans Medical Centers and educates over 700 medical students and more than 390 resident physicians in training. This bill also provides the VA a formal role in the national disaster medical system, and authorizes the VA to treat first responders, active-duty military forces deployed in domestic deployments, fire fighters, police officers and members of the general public who may fall victim to terrorism or mass casualty disasters. Another important part of this bill is the establishment of a centralized office at VA headquarters to manage all emergency preparedness, security and law enforcement activities, and to organize the VA's resources for maximum efficiency and effectiveness in protecting the security of VA's patients, staff, and infrastructure from the risk and threat of terrorism. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill for the American people. The professionals who need to be trained in saving lives will be properly armed with information, education and expertise to provide health care. Mechanisms will be put in place to study the likely avenues and methods of chemical, biological, and radiological poisoning. The VA will also be a part of a national presence for rapid response by local and Federal officials in types of emergencies that only a year ago we could scarcely imagine. H.R. 3253 is a bipartisan and bicameral compromise, Mr. Speaker. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, I am very pleased that the long journey of this legislation concludes today and that we shall send the bill to the President. I want to commend my Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, for his leadership and advocacy on this measure, as well as our colleagues, the Ranking Member of the full Committee, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Evans, and the Ranking Member of my Subcommittee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Filner, for their work. As my Chairman has said previously on the floor of this Chamber, he feels a personal obligation, from events in his own district in the anthrax incidents, that Congress act to improve our safety and prevent such future travesites. I commend him for his dedication and agree that this measure aids in that respect. I also thank our colleagues in the Senate for their cooperation, contributions and comity. This bill may be seen as only a small effort today, Mr. Speaker, but it could pay large dividends down the road in America's war on terrorism. I urge its adoption by the House.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, there are compelling, fundamental reasons why this body should oppose this resolution. With great power comes great responsibility, great responsibility to conduct our foreign policy in a manner worthy of our world leadership, consistent with the international standards of conduct that we have worked so hard to establish for the better part of the 20th century. The United States must continue to act in a manner that serves as an example to the rest of the world. Mr. Speaker, this Congress is the people's body. That is why before we offer up the lives of our sons and daughters in the cause of war, we must have the final say. The amendment that just failed was about upholding the integrity of this institution and the U.S. Constitution that must guide all our actions. We should be making Saddam Hussein irrelevant, not marginalizing the United States Congress. We make him irrelevant by disarming him, discovering and destroying all of his weapons of mass destruction and his means of delivering them. We can accomplish that objective without leaving our allies on the sidelines or further inflaming the passions of people, especially in the Arab and Muslim world, who do not understand or trust our noble intent. We are not the only people prepared to sacrifice our lives for the family security and individual freedoms that motivate the human race. We oppose this resolution for the same reasons the first President Bush delayed a comparable debate until after the midterm congressional elections a decade ago, why he pressed so hard and successfully for the United Nations Security Council's support, and why he successfully achieved the support of Iraq's Arab neighbors. Mr. Speaker, we do not need a new national security strategy that, with a policy of unilateral preemption, tramples the foundation of the international rules of law that has been this generation's legacy to this small planet. We should be standing on the shoulders of the great leaders who have preceded us in this body and who are the true authors of our existing national security strategy that remains the best hope of peace and progress for all of mankind.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my very good friends on the other side, this amendment builds on the lessons of leadership from our success in the Persian Gulf War. Virtually no American lives lost and our specific mission accomplished. We want to do just what we did in 1991. President Bush waited until after the congressional midterm elections. He secured the United Nations Security Council authorization to use international force. We had the support of Iraq's Arab neighbors. We did not position this country as a target for vengeance from Arab and Muslim extremists, and for a decade, we have contained and sanctioned Saddam. We are fighting another war today, a war on terrorism, and our intelligence agencies tell us these are separate wars. This amendment focuses on winning both wars and securing our deserved position as the unparalleled leader and inspiration of the free world. The rest of the free world is no less determined to protect their families and individual liberties. Let us make this war and the war on terrorism an international and definitive success.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about people who have watched their families struggle all their adult lives because of their service-connected disability. Now that they are eligible for military retirement, they are being punished because they are eligible for both; and like most military retirees who are able to enhance their military retirement pay, because of their disability, they have not been able to. It is only fair that they receive their military retirement and their service-connected disability. On the day that we voted to send more troops to war, this is the day we ought to fix this injustice. Let us do the right thing. Let us pass it.