Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of this legislation which will seek to ease a small part of the intolerable burden which has been placed on families of public safety officers who have been lost or injured in their heroic efforts to rescue the victims of Tuesday's attacks. Currently the Department of Justice provides a one-time payment benefit of $100,000 to these families. However, the paperwork involved in processing them can be complicated and unnecessarily time-consuming involving months of delays. As unbelievable as it may sound, in order to be approved, the victims' families are required to provide autopsy reports and proof that he or she did not suffer from a preexisting injury that may have contributed to their death. When this legislation is passed, the families of these victims will not have to endure this heart-wrenching process. Instead, once the Federal Government has certified that the public safety officer has gone down in the line of duty, the victim's family will automatically receive their benefit. There will be no bureaucratic or unnecessary delays in this process. In Arlington County, I am proud to say that countless numbers of people have assisted in the Herculean effort to rescue the victims of the Pentagon disaster. When I called to ask for a specific number of officers injured in the line of duty, I was told those figures were not available because of the outpouring of assistance. Officers from all over the area have been rushing to help without bothering to sign in or be accounted for. By passing this legislation today, we will help ensure that victims' families will not have to needlessly suffer should the very worst happen. Mr. Speaker, more public safety officers were lost in the attack on the United States Tuesday than any other single event in modern history. Expediting assistance is one small way we can help families cope with this loss and take advantage of this benefit without undue burden or delays. Without question, more needs to be done in response to Tuesday's cataclysmic events, but this is a good first step in helping some of the victims' families; and I urge my colleagues to unanimously support this legislation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we cannot yet grasp the impact of Tuesday's events on the future of American life. In Northern Virginia, our fear and anxiety are almost overwhelming. All of us know someone who works at the Pentagon. They are friends and neighbors. They are active in our schools and churches. In short, they are good people who have devoted their lives to the defense of freedom. Our thoughts and prayers are with the entire family of Pentagon employees. They have demonstrated once again the particular dangers to which our military and Federal civil servants are often subjected. While thousands of innocent lives have been lost, this much is certain. The perpetrators of this horrible attack must not succeed in weakening the United States or its core values. We must not retreat from our legitimate role as the leader of the free world. Where American interests are at stake or where the cause of freedom and democracy can be appropriately advanced, American foreign policy must be one of active engagement. American leadership in promoting peace and democracy will put the Nation at odds with terrorists and others bent on evil. Tuesday's events, as horrible and as tragic as they are, do not mark the first time America has been targeted because its most basic values are correct. Fear of terrorists must not deter us from carrying on our policies just as we have for more than 200 years. America must also stand firm, though, in its commitment to civil liberties for all of our people. In the coming months and years, all of us will have to make accommodations to heightened security at our airports, Federal buildings, and other large landmarks. We can and must make those accommodations and in a manner that is wholly consistent with the U.S. Constitution. We will have to devote more of our national resources toward intelligence gathering and counterterrorism. We must resist the dark temptation toward human prejudice as the investigation of these attacks unfolds. In the wake of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Japanese-Americans were terribly mistreated by our government and many of our countrymen. I do not know where the current investigation will lead, but I do know that no religious or ethnic group that comprises our diverse society must be made to suffer solely because of their religion or ethnicity. We will go after these terrorists, and we do so in concert with our allies around the world. Democrats and Republicans alike, we are all Americans in a common enterprise. We will not let this happen again.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, Congressman Harris has informed me that the actual name of his law firm is Harris Ellsworth & Levin.

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank again my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), and my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). This is a neat opportunity to recognize two very distinguished individuals. This bill would name a post office after my good friend, Congressman Herb Harris. It will be at 8588 Richmond Highway, which is Route 1. It is a brand new post office in an area that desperately needs a post office and needs economic redevelopment, and this will provide it to that area. It is more than appropriate that we honor Herb Harris, who represented the Mount Vernon District on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, became vice chair, as the gentleman from Virginia has said, and he still lives in Mount Vernon. He is still very much involved in what goes on in that community. He did more things for that community and for Fairfax County, and, in many ways, for the Nation, than we will ever know. He began his public service in 1968. He was instrumental in getting funding for a new hospital and expanding the libraries in the Mount Vernon area and in Fairfax County. He spent a lot of time on thankless tasks, like limiting utility costs and tax rates. He was first elected in 1975 to the Congress after serving as vice chair of the Metropolitan Washington Transit Authority, and he used that experience on the Metro board to continually push for expansion of the Metro system. He got the legislation through that approved $1.9 billion in final construction funds for the full 101-mile Metro design. Metro is critical to the entire Metropolitan Washington area. In the early days, it was a very controversial, very political issue, to bring Metro out to the suburbs and to pay the costs. You had to have a vision, and Herb had that vision. He also promoted the rights of Federal employees. He was fiscally responsible, and he emphasized the need for future planning in terms of transportation needs. In so many areas, we find today that he was even more correct than we understood at the time in terms of meeting those transportation needs. It was the first time in 25 years that a freshman Member of Congress was selected to serve as chairman of a subcommittee when Herb was designated as the chair of the Subcommittee on the Environment, Bicentennial Celebration and International Community in Washington. It is with great gratitude that I thank Herb on behalf of the Members of this body, all the Members of this body, and really of the country, for his tireless efforts to improve the lives of Virginia's and America's residents. He was a forward-looking individual that was a lot of fun to work with, and he was tireless in his devotion to public service. That is why it is most appropriate that we designate the Post Office at 8588 Richmond Highway as the Herb E. Harris Post Office Building. We have Congressman Harris with us. Herb, thank you for all you did. You are so deserving of this honor. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) would know better than I, controlling the redistricting; but, you betcha. Absolutely.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), in whose district the Stan Parris Post Office will be located. This is a very nice post office, and it is appropriate that it be named after Stan Parris; and I want to commend my other good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). It was really his idea that we name both these offices in tandem after Stan Parris and Herb Harris in true bipartisan tradition. This one that we are speaking specifically about is that for Stan Parris, and the reason why Stan certainly deserves a post office being named after him is that he devoted his life to public service. He was a fighter pilot during the Korean war. I am sure that that has been mentioned. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross with cluster, the Air Medal with clusters, Purple Heart and the U.S. and Korean Presidential Citations. So he really was a war hero. After the war, he continued his commitment to public service. He was on the Fairfax Board of County Supervisors. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) chaired that board and he knows what difficult, thankless work that can be. He was supervisor in a particularly important transitional time in local government in Fairfax County, and he also served as a delegate in the General Assembly in Richmond for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The reason why this Congress should recognize him is his service for 12 years in the United States House of Representatives. He was on the Committee on District of Columbia; Committee on Government Operations; the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs Committees. He was chair of the Subcommittee on Fiscal Affairs and Health, Government Operations and Metropolitan Affairs where he promoted fiscal responsibility. I am very pleased that the three of us can recognize him, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), and I, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner); and we speak for the entire Congress. You have done a great job, Stan, and this is a very appropriate, fitting tribute to you to name this post office after you.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure to expand our trade relations with Vietnam. This resolution, which ratifies the U.S.-Vietnam bilateral trade agreement and extends normal trade relations to Vietnam, enjoys broad bipartisan support. The agreement represents a milestone toward building a stronger commercial relationship with Vietnam and promoting U.S. security and diplomatic interests in the region. We have seen tremendous progress in our diplomatic and economic relations with the Vietnamese Government. The country is experiencing a new era, driven by a population where 65 percent of its citizens were born after the war. Vietnam today welcomes U.S. trade and economic investment. Through a policy of engagement and U.S. business investment, Vietnam has improved its policies on immigration, cooperated on U.S. refugee programs, and worked with the United States on achieving the fullest possible accounting of POW/MIAs from the Vietnam War. Despite problems of corruption and government repression, there is reason to believe that our presence in Vietnam can improve the situation and encourage its government to become more open, respect human rights and follow the rule of law. Former U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam, Pete Peterson, our esteemed former colleague and former POW, has been one of our nation's strongest advocates for expanding trade with Vietnam. However, this resolution is not a blank check to Vietnam. Before the United States grants NTR status to Vietnam, the Vietnamese Government is required to sharply lower most tariffs; phase out all non-tariff measures; and adhere to WTO standards in applying customs, import licensing another measures. This measure also takes an important step in requiring Vietnam to allow U.S., firms over a period of time to enter its services market in a full range of areas, including financial, telecom, engineering, computing, education, health and other services. Two other critical areas of this agreement require Vietnam to protect U.S. investments from expropriation and adopt a fully transparent trade and investment regime. Mr. Speaker, disapproval of this resolution will only discourage U.S. businesses from operating in Vietnam, arm Soviet-style hardliners with the pretext to clamp down on what economic and social freedoms the Vietnamese people now experience, and eliminate what opportunity we have to influence Vietnam in the future. Approval of this bilateral agreement will advance U.S. economic interests and, more importantly to our regional interests in Asia, further integrate Vietnam into the global economy. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Deloris Carter Hampton, a resident of Northern Virginia, who passed away on July 15, 2001, while attending a family gathering in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. I first met Deloris over ten years ago and was immediately impressed by her generosity of spirit, boundless energy, sense of humor, and devotion to her family and friends. As a young student, she fulfilled her dream of becoming a dancer by dancing for Martha Graham. She graduated from Tuskegee Institute and received her master's degree from New York University before beginning her teaching career in Huntsville, Alabama and in Englewood, New Jersey. Deloris was a caring wife, mother, friend and teacher. She was dedicated to children and teaching, and spent 27 years as a physical education instructor before retiring in 1996 from the public schools in Prince William County, Virginia. Deloris was an activist in her community, in the State of Virginia and in civil rights. In Prince William County, she was a member of the Service Authority, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Committee of 100, the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA), and a founding member of Women in Community Action (WICA). She was active in the National, Virginia and Prince William County Education Associations, the American Association of University Women (AAUW), the Fairfax County Retired Educators Association as immediate past President, in the Virginia Education Association of Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, in Carrousels, Inc., and in Celebrate Children. She was a hard working member of her church, Good Shepherd United Methodist Church. Deloris leaves a loving family, her husband, George M. Hampton, Sr., a retired Army officer, her father, George L. Carter, Sr., a son George M. Hampton, Jr., a daughter Sydni T. Hampton, and a granddaughter, Desiree D. Hampton. Deloris will always be missed by those who knew her but her selfless, giving spirit lives on in her community, and with her family and her friends.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we do not have any objection either; but I do not think that, as long as we look for the highest quality at the most affordable price, we are going to have a problem with the intent of the gentleman's amendment anyway. But we are not going to object to it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want first of all to express my appreciation for the cooperation of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), which has enabled us to craft a good bipartisan bill which should garner the support of the full House. Paramount among our objectives has been the need to ensure that the legislative branch agencies have the resources they need to fully carry out their missions. These agencies are the vital elements of our democratic process. I believe they are properly treated by this fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill. The bill prioritizes our capital improvement programs. It confronts, not defers, personnel issues such as an aging work force and retention challenges, and it funds several new technology projects that will allow us to perform our work more efficiently, and to make this work more readily available to the public and to preserve it for posterity. The 302(b) allocation and prudent oversight have given us the flexibility we needed to craft a good budget and honor our legislative branch agency requests with only a 4.4 percent increase in our overall allocation. The Library of Congress, the General Accounting Office, the Government Printing Office and the Congressional Budget Office largely received what they requested. Funds are also available to hire an additional 79 police officers, bringing the force to 1,481 full-time equivalents, and provide a full increase in benefits. We have directed the Architect of the Capitol's budget to make life and safety improvements a priority and not proceed with any new construction projects until design plans are completed. Mr. Chairman, I want to recognize the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and express my appreciation for his successful effort to add report language that will end the long-standing practice of using temporary workers for long-term projects to get around providing them health and pension benefits. These temporary workers, some 300 in all, have been employed by the Architect on an average of 4.5 years. Recognition should also be given to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who was able to include language supporting a plan to include more artwork on the Capitol grounds that more fully represents women's contributions to American society. She also quite articulately expressed her concerns about the use by the Vice President of one of the House offices in the Capitol. I want to express my appreciation for the efforts by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) to highlight the need to provide adequate changing facilities and showers for staff, and generating support for the transit benefits that are both addressed in this legislation. I feel very strongly, as does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), that since we are going to lose some showers for staff, we ought to be providing more, not less. I hope one day we would even have a gymnasium facility available for staff people, as the Members of Congress have. We should also have parity between the male and female Members in terms of those facilities. Mr. Chairman, this bill sets aside sufficient funds to enable all offices, be it a Member's, a committee's, the Congressional Budget Office or the Government Printing Office, to provide all their employees with a $65 per month employee transit benefit. We should not forget the sacrifices our staff and committee staff, employees in the GPO, the Capitol Police, the Congressional Research Service, and all of the legislative branch agencies make every day to meet deadlines, advance the interests of Members, and serve the public good. We may not be able to compensate fully what they should receive, but we can and should help where we can. This budget enables us to at least provide employees with a $65 per month transit benefit, as the other executive agencies are able to. It will eventually go up to $100 per month. It encourages people to use public transit where able, and that helps everybody commuting in the Washington metropolitan area. Mr. Chairman, this bill goes a long way towards addressing the needs and obligations of the legislative branch. I am pleased to support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), a member of this appropriations subcommittee. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all I wanted to reiterate what the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) said with regard to the transit benefit. When we offered this benefit to executive branch employees, Mr. Tim Aiken on my staff has been working on it very closely, we saw an immediate increase of more than 70,000 riders of transit in the executive branch taking advantage of this. It has continued to increase dramatically and steadily every month. This works. Providing the $65 transit benefit to the legislative branch employees, we trust, will have the same effect of getting people out of their single-occupant vehicles into public transit. That helps all of us, both those people who drive to work as well as, of course, helping the financing of our Metro system. It also is going to help in achieving our pollution attainment standards which are a major problem right now for the Washington metro area. This is a good idea. It is eventually going to go up to $100. I am underscoring it because I want all of the people that work for the legislative branch to be aware that this $65 transit benefit will now be available to them. It is tax-free; there is no reason not to take advantage of it if you can possibly use public transit. And so we very much encourage people in the Legislative Branch to take advantage of this benefit. In addition, some people are actually going to ride bicycles or some even run. I ran to work a couple of times in my younger days. I do not know how many people are going to do that; but however many, we ought to have shower facilities, including for staff that work so many long hours. Many staff are working 12- and 16-hour days. They should certainly have an hour to take a jog if they want, down to the Mall or whatever. We need to be building more shower facilities for both men and women and I think eventually some workout facility on the Capitol grounds. We have language that will move us forward in that direction. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) had an amendment that was not made in order, but I want to say for the record that I support the concept of eligibility for student loan repayment benefits for employees of the House and its supporting agencies. As she pointed out, executive branch employees as well as employees of the GPO and the Library of Congress are already eligible for student loan forgiveness. Current law authorizes payments of up to $6,000 per year up to a total of $40,000 per person for their college education. We did not approve the request of the CBO, however, to extend this benefit to their employees because we felt that a uniform policy should be developed across the board. The bill, therefore, calls for study of the issue by the Committee on House Administration. The Senate bill, which was reported subsequent to our subcommittee markup, authorizes the extension of this benefit to all Senate employees. In light of that action and in anticipation of the other body's desire to include this benefit for Senate employees in this year's bill, it is essential that the Committee on House Administration develop guidelines rapidly. This would give the conferees on the Legislative bill some real options for moving forward with a well- thought-out student loan forgiveness eligibility program. We need more tools to recruit and retain valuable staff. This program is a modest way to help individuals who have decided on public service as a career to get higher education and for us to help them make it affordable. I hope we can be responsive to this need but do it in the context of a uniform policy for all House employees. I congratulate the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for having introduced her amendment. We do have two, what I would consider, minor amendments, no offense to the people making them; but they should not be too controversial, and then we should be able to pass this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who was very active and constructive on this bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, my very distinguished colleague from Michigan, Mr. Levin, for yielding me this time. I strongly support this resolution that approves the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. The United States rarely gets a chance to score a clear victory that will promote economic growth, regional stability, reward a trusted ally, and affirm our most basic democratic values. We have such an opportunity right now with this agreement. Even though Jordan is only our 100th largest trading partner, the Jordan Free Trade Agreement is crucial to our national interest. First, this agreement holds the potential of jump-starting a process of trade liberalization that has slowed down considerably since 1995. Under this agreement, duties on almost all goods would be phased out over a 10-year period. Jordan commits itself to opening its markets fully to U.S. manufacturers, farmers, and service providers. The Jordan FTA is the first such agreement ever to address issues related to electronic commerce and the Internet, with Jordan promising to ratify international agreements ensuring the protection of software and audio recordings on the Internet. Also under this agreement both sides pledge much greater openness in the resolution of disputes. More significant than this contribution to open trade is what the Jordan FTA should mean for our continuing pursuit of peace and stability in the Middle East. Since coming to power after the death of his legendary father, King Hussein, 2 years ago, King Abdullah has launched a series of progressive reforms intended to modernize Jordan's economy. The nation has joined the World Trade Organization, deregulated some of its service industries, and strengthened its intellectual property laws. It has also stood with the United States politically, helping to enforce our trade embargo against Iraq, and serving as a voice of moderation among the Arab states. By entering into this agreement, we are promoting regional economic growth, and sending a strong and positive signal of support to a crucial ally. If we were to delay this trade agreement that the previous Clinton administration worked out so constructively, it would send the opposite and wrong signal. This trade agreement marks a new approach to addressing labor and environmental provisions that I think is reasonable and realistic. Approval of this agreement should give us some momentum now to move forward on our larger bipartisan trade agenda, most notably trade promotion authority. Global agreements can be values driven as well as profits driven, and that is why I urge my colleagues to approve this agreement and reaffirm our commitment to this vital ally in the Middle East.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and thank him for all he has done for the fire fighters of the State of Maryland and of the District of Columbia. I have witnessed firsthand what he has done to beef up the capability of fire stations, not just within these two jurisdictions, but across the country. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the head of the Fire Caucus. The fact is that fire fighters today do so much more than fight fires. They respond to medical emergencies, crises, catastrophes. They are the first line of defense when we have emergencies that occur across the country. So I support the intent of this amendment very strongly. I do have some reticence about the fact that it would be taken from salaries and expenses in HUD, as I know the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) do. But I suspect that when we sit down with the Senate, that the fire fighters will be recipients of the kind of financial support and political support that they need and deserve.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution and urge my colleagues to uphold the current Jackson-Vanik waiver. The Jackson-Vanik provision of the 1974 Trade Act was intended to encourage communist countries to relax their restrictive emigration policies. The Jackson-Vanik waiver specifically granted the President the power to waive the restrictions on U.S. government credits or investment guarantees to communist countries if the waiver would help promote significant progress toward relaxing emigration controls. Mr. Speaker, Senator Scoop Jackson was a staunch anti-communist. Yet, he was willing to consider to incentives to encourage the Soviet Union to relax its emigration policy. In 1998, Charles Vanik, former Member and co-author of the Jackson- Vanik provision, sent me a letter expressing his strong opposition to the motion to disapprove trade credits for Vietnam and urged the Congress to uphold the current waiver. Vietnam is experiencing a new era, driven by a population where 65 percent of its citizens were born after the war. Vietnam today welcomes U.S. trade and economic investment. The Vietnamese Government has made significant progress in meeting the emigration criteria in the Jackson-Vanik amendment. Through a policy of engagement and U.S. business investment, Vietnam has improved its emigration policies, cooperated on U.S. refugee programs, and worked with the United States on achieving the fullest possible accounting of POW/MIAs from the Vietnam War. Despite problems of corruption and government repression, there is reason to believe that our presence in Vietnam can improve the situation and encourage its government to become more open, respect human rights and follow the rule of law. The economic incentives provided in Jackson-Vanik are all one-sided favoring U.S. firms doing business in Vietnam. I am among many of my colleagues who support approval of the U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement that will be marked up by the Ways and Means Committee later today. This bilateral agreement will advance U.S. economic interests and further integrate Vietnam into the global economy. Recently departed U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam, Pete Peterson, our esteemed former colleague and former POW, has been one of our nation's strongest advocates for expanding trade with Vietnam. Renewing the Jackson-Vanik waiver will increase market access for U.S. goods and services in the 12th most populous country in the world. Disapproval of this waiver will only discourage U.S. businesses from operating in Vietnam, arm Soviet-style hardliners with the pretext to clamp down on what economic and social freedoms the Vietnamese people now experience, and eliminate what opportunity we have to influence Vietnam in the future. Mr. Speaker, we have debated and soundly rejected similar disapproval resolutions in past years. I urge my colleagues to do the same today and uphold the presidential waiver of the Jackson-Vanik requirements.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his amendment. It is the right thing to do. Mr. Chairman, I have not heard anybody on this floor suggest, as my friend from New Jersey stated, that we think Fidel Castro is a great guy. I do not know where that came from. Nobody has suggested that. I do not think anybody comes close to believing that. We know he is a dictator. There is no question about that. But we want the idea of American freedom to find its fruition in Cuba as well as America. This travel restriction is un-American. Americans should be able to travel any place they want. And as they travel, they communicate with the citizens of other countries. When the Cuban people see the way we live because of what we believe in, that is going to topple the dictatorship. Forty years. How long does it take to realize that a policy is not working? Our current Cuba policy has not worked. Let us build upon the freedoms that every American citizen represents when they travel someplace else. Let me suggest to my colleagues that the historical context should be considered here as well. If it had not been for the way that the former regime had treated the Cuban people, the Communist Revolution could not have succeeded. The Batista government treated many of the Cuban people miserably, particularly its darkest-skinned citizens. That history has a lot to do with why Fidel Castro is still in power today. Now it is time to try a different approach. Now it is time to let, yes, our students; imagine what would happen if they went to Cuba on a spring break. Fidel Castro would have nightmares over that threat. But when Cubans see the way we live here, that is what is going to bring freedom to Cuba, and that is what is going to enable us to trade with Cuba, and that is what is going to enable us to have a real neighbor that we can work with. Mr. Chairman, 40 years is too long. It is time to realize that the policy we are using today is not working. Let us try a new one. Let us pass this amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am very much troubled by an article that was written by Steve Kelman, who was President Clinton's Director of Federal Procurement Policy in the White House. Many may know Steve. Mr. Kelman says, This is not a pretty picture. If this was passed, it could literally grind government to a halt. What TRAC does is enormously expand the scope of the Office of Management and Budget's Circular A-76, and it will include services that have always been contracted out in the past. It particularly affects telecommunications services and information technology. It is a troubling procedure that almost exclusively focuses on costs, rather than best value, and demands huge investments of time and resources. I think that is a troubling assessment from somebody who understands the issue.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I very much thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my very close friend and neighbor and leader in so many ways, and particularly on the issues that are involved in this Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. I wanted to refer to three of them in particular: the effect on the Federal workforce; gender parity in terms of health insurance; and the money for the Customs modernization that is in this bill. In terms of the Federal workforce, this includes an amendment that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and I put in the full committee markup. It also reflects an amendment that I had added to this year's budget resolution that we should be providing the same pay raises for Federal civilian employees as we do for military employees. President Bush's budget includes a 4.6 to 5 percent increase for military employees and, in some cases, up to 10 percent. We think that civilian employees who work side-by-side with military personnel should get the same pay raise. We have a crisis developing in the Federal workforce. Over the next 5 years, up to half of our Federal workforce will retire or at least be eligible for retirement. There are a number of things we can do to address this crisis. One of them is to implement the Federal Employees Pay Compensation Act that was passed back in 1990. Right now, we have a 32 percent pay gap between Federal civilian employees and people who perform the same function in the private sector. There is a 10 percent gap between military personnel and those people who perform the same function in the private sector. Both of those gaps should be narrowed and eventually eliminated, but we should at least provide the same pay raise for civilian as well as military personnel. In terms of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, this plan has been going up by double digits in each of the last 4 years. So it is important that we bring these premium costs under control while maintaining the current coverage of services, and since about half of our workforce are women, which we would expect, we should certainly treat women the same as we do men in terms of its coverage. Right now, there is a disparity. President Bush's budget expressly rejects the bipartisan contraceptive coverage provision that has been part of this bill since 1998, so we put it back in in committee to make sure that women's contraception is covered under Federal health insurance plans. It is the largest single out-of-pocket expense for women during their working years, and there is no question that this is an important aspect of health insurance coverage and should be mandated if the executive branch is not going to include it. There is no additional cost to the plan, according to the Office of Personnel Management; and I am glad that this will be part of this bill and should certainly be enacted. Now, the last thing is the Automated Commercial System for Customs. There is an inclusion of money for the Customs Service to continue the computerization of our Customs Service. This is terribly important. We have miles of trucks backed up on our borders. This should have been put in place years ago. We will now be on schedule to put Customs automation on line within the next 5 years. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It should be passed with a strong bipartisan vote.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the very distinguished gentlewoman from California, for yielding time to me. She has introduced an amendment that we should all support. Mr. Chairman, our neighbor needs our help desperately. What is our excuse for not helping our neighbor? We have a $10 trillion economy, we have more surplus than we have ever had, we just gave ourselves a $2 trillion tax cut, and our neighbor needs our help desperately. They had an earthquake that they could not have done anything about. Imagine, 1.6 million, one out of four people in El Salvador has been affected. In fact, about 10,000 were killed or seriously injured. Our neighbor needs our help. Three hundred thirty-five thousand homes were destroyed, and El Salvador tells us that they do not possibly have the money to build even 30,000. So 90 percent of the people lost their homes and are not going to be able to rebuild a home. They are families. They all have kids. They are living in tents. Our neighbor needs our help. We have never had as much capacity as we do today to help. We have no excuse not to help. When we think of the health care, the sanitation needs, the housing, they need it all. We provided $6 billion during the 1980s in military aid. Where are our priorities? Tens of thousands of Salvadorans are in this country because of the terror of the ``death squads'' that we contributed to. Where are our priorities? We have $100 million in this bill to help our neighbor. They need $2.1 billion, according to the United Nations development program; and we pledge $110 million, 5 percent. Where is the other 95 percent going to come from? They have no other neighbors as close nor as capable as we are of helping. So we are going to turn our backs on our neighbors? That is what we are doing with 5 percent? It is an insult. Mr. Chairman, this is defining of who we are as a nation. I know the gentleman's heart is in the right place. Certainly his words were in the right place in the supplemental. This should have been in the emergency supplemental. We were told when we tried to get the money that there was going to be more money in the regular bill, but it is not here. The money is available; but the priorities are not in the right place. This is wrong, not to do more for our neighbor. One out of four people were affected, killed, injured, homeless. They are desperate. We need to go to their assistance. We need to define what kind of a country, what kind of a people we are. There are a lot of Salvadoran Americans who believe in the compassion and greatness of that definition, who came to this country because they believed we were capable of doing more than we are doing now for their home country. This should be a national priority. We should support the Pelosi amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution. Normal trade relations with China has been supported by every single President of the United States, Republican and Democratic alike, since 1980. By continuing normal trade relations with China, we are neither providing China special treatment, nor are we endorsing China's policies. The United States is the only major country that does not extend permanent normal trade relations with China. China is also the world's largest economy that is not subject to the World Trade Organization's trade liberalization requirements. The vast majority of Members voted to granted PNTR status to China last year. This action is critical to advancing China's accession to the WTO, which will bring the Chinese into a rules-based trading system. It would also enable U.S. consumers and businesses to gain access to the broadest range of goods and services from China at the lowest prices. Restricting trade will only force our consumers to pay higher prices. Continuing normal trade relations with China serves our best economic interests. Approximately 200,000 U.S. jobs are tied directly to U.S. exports to China. Without this relationship, we would be placing American firms at a severe competitive disadvantage. American companies are setting an example in China. They are offering good jobs, fair compensation, and strong worker protections. While I share the concerns expressed by many of our colleagues regarding human rights abuses in China, discontinuing normal trade relations will not improve human rights in China. Instead of isolating China, we should be exposing the Chinese people to Western ideas and the rule of law. Bringing China into the global free enterprise economy will shine a much-needed light on its government. Last week's decision by the International Olympic Committee to award China the bid for the 2008 games will put more pressure on the Chinese leadership to prove it is worthy of the designation and the international attention. Promoting normal trade and continued economic engagement over time will help open up China's economy and society. The way we engage the Chinese Government will help determine whether China assimilates into the community of nations or becomes more isolated and unpredictable. By revoking NTR with China, we would be standing alone on a trade policy that neither our allies nor trade competitors would follow. Our competitors would gain an advantage, consumers would pay higher retail prices, the Chinese people would suffer, and economic and political reform in China would be arrested. In short, we have much to lose and little to gain by failing to continue our current trading relationship with China. We should reject this resolution, and we should support continuing normal trade relations with China.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. In the first place, the Court has clarified time and again the interpretation of the second amendment, and it is for the purpose of a well-regulated militia. Chief Justice Warren Burger is a good person to consult on that. He was a gun collector himself, and he made that unquestionably clear. We are not talking about compromising in any way the Constitution. What we are talking about is the ability of law enforcement to carry out its responsibilities. Currently a 90-day retention period is maintained so that you can audit the system, so that you can weed out those who are using straw purchases, so that you can identify people that are not supposed to be getting a gun, and to determine whether, in fact, the system is working. The FBI will tell you that privacy is scrupulously maintained. They are not keeping the names. There is no way that people's privacy is going to be violated. But if we do not have a reasonable retention period, this system is not going to work and we will go back to a waiting period. Maybe that is for the best.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is an amendment which incorporates what the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) has previously offered in freestanding legislation. For the last 3 years, the FBI has kept records of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for 6 months. Last month, the FBI reduced this retention period to 90 days. What this amendment would do is to simply keep that 90-day retention period in place for the length of this appropriations period. Last year the NRA sued the Justice Department to destroy the records immediately. The Justice Department of Attorney General Ashcroft argued before the Appeals Court and the Supreme Court that it was necessary to retain these records for a reasonable period of time to ensure that the information provided by the system is accurate and that people are not providing false information in order to evade the law. Based on that argument, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court decision that the retention by the Department of Justice represented a permissible construction of the requirement to establish a system for preventing disqualified persons from purchasing firearms. Now, the reason for this amendment is that 3 days after the Supreme Court decision said this was the appropriate thing to do, Attorney General Ashcroft decided that they should be destroyed within 1 day. That seems to run counter to the Justice Department's own argument. In fact, the Criminal Background Check Systems Operation Report, which was issued in April of this year, shows that over 5,000 people were able to slip through the NICS system last year alone. They received an approval which allowed them to purchase a gun that they legally should not have had. So the system is not perfect. To lower the time frame now seems at best unnecessary and, at worst, represents an attempt to frustrate the purpose of the act. Even more troubling is that this year the Department of Justice published a rule in which they cited the fact that their own criminal justice advisory panel recommended increasing the retention period to 1 year. This amendment would only allow the 90 days. The amendment seeks to prohibit the FBI from destroying records that they say are necessary to be kept. So we do not think that this is any kind of radical amendment. It allows for quality control audits. It makes sure that the straw buyers, the bad apple dealers, are identified. Potential handgun purchasers or gun dealers who have stolen an identity in order evade the background check system can be caught. In other words, purchases for unauthorized purposes would be denied through this audit. That is why we think it is important. Mr. Chairman, I will retain the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to myself to respond to the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, it was career civil servants in the Justice Department that argued successfully before the Supreme Court that this retention period was necessary to be retained. When we asked with regard to the 90 days, they found that it would do no harm whatsoever. In fact, when we looked at the information that was prepared for the notice of proposed rulemaking, they said the only reason not to have 180 days was basically that gun-interest groups would object politically. The Justice Department's Criminal Justice Advisory Board in fact recommended one full year's retention of these records. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.