Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), who has fought this issue for many years and has personal experience that we should all listen to.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds just to remind my very good friend from West Virginia that these records do not retain any names, and so privacy is scrupulously maintained. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this is not a common occurrence, but it does happen. When it happens, it is under tragic circumstances. For this Congress to prevent a woman from being able to make reasonable choices that influence the rest of her life is just unconscionable. Women do get arrested and are incarcerated while pregnant. Some women are impregnated by guards. For whatever reason, some women find themselves in untenable positions in prison. To deny them the constitutional rights that women fortunately have in the United States because they are imprisoned is wrong. For us to be the vehicle that denies those rights is unconscionable. Think of the child that is born into a situation where its mother is incarcerated in prison. Children need to be born into a loving, nurturing, wanted situation. What could be worse than to be forced to give birth to a child that might be the result of a rape in prison that would be a child that one could not care for, that one could not raise in the way all of us were raised? The woman deserves the right to choose. She should not be denied that. This amendment should be supported.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to do this, and I will probably be the only member in this body to do so, but I oppose this resolution. I am sure that Paul Coverdell was a far more accomplished politician than I will ever be and that many in this body will ever be; but I do not consider him to be a great man, I do not consider many people in our generation to be great, and certainly not this generation of political leaders. And that is what I would like to speak to today. I think we are a self-indulgent generation that operates on the assumption that the heroes in our experience are the only ones that matter. We build buildings on every piece of prime open space and name buildings after people in our experience rather than leave their legacy to the test of time. We put our own spin on history. We have been blessed with the longest period of sustained peace and prosperity that any generation has ever experienced that they did not have to struggle for, and yet we reward ourselves by spending our surplus and giving ourselves deep tax cuts all at the expense of our children and grandchildren. We operate under the assumption that subsequent generations will never have heroes as great as those in our experience, and that is self-indulgence and self-deception. Specifically to the Peace Corps Building, why not name it after Mrs. Ruppe, who headed the Peace Corps for 8 years under the Reagan administration, who for 2 years did not take a salary because she did not feel she understood the Peace Corps well enough. There are many people who deserve it, for example Sargent Shriver, who started it. But most importantly, all those Peace Corps volunteers who struggled and sacrificed and who made a real difference in the lives of the poor and oppressed around the world, what they want is for the building to continue to be named the Peace Corps Building after the organization, the mission and the volunteers, and that is as it should be. And thus, I will oppose this resolution.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this well-intentioned amendment. When I was first elected to the House, I cosponsored the flag burning amendment. I did so for many of the same reasons that proponents of the amendment have expressed today. It is disturbing to think of someone burning the flag of the United States. It is an action that holds in contempt the greatness of this Nation and all those who gave up their lives defending this symbol of freedom that our flag represents. It is an act for cowards. And yet looking back, I was moved by my heart more than my head. History informs us that the strength of America is derived from its basic ideals, one of the most important of which is tolerance for the full expression of ideas, even the most obnoxious ones. For more than 2 centuries, the first amendment to the Constitution has safeguarded the right of our people to write or publish almost anything without interference, to practice their religion freely and to protest against the Government in almost every way imaginable. It is a sign of our strength that, unlike so many repressive nations on earth, ours is a country with a constitution and a body of laws that accommodates a wide-ranging public debate. We must not become the first Congress in U.S. history to chill public debate by tampering with the first amendment. Mr. Speaker, H. L. Mencken once said, ``The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels, for it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed. And oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.'' Flag burners are generally scoundrels. On that much we would agree. But we ought not give them any more attention than they deserve. Mr. Speaker, former Senator Chuck Robb sacrificed his political career by doing such things as voting against this amendment in order to defend the very freedoms that the American flag represents. In his Senate floor statement last year, he described how he had been prepared to give up his life in the Vietnam War in order to protect the very freedoms that this constitutional amendment would suppress. He did wind up giving up his political career by showing the courage to vote against this amendment. Not having fought in a war, I should do no less than Senator Robb did in defense of the freedom he and so many of my peers were willing to defend with their lives. This amendment should be defeated. I think the substitute amendment is appropriate. It should be supported. But this amendment should be defeated in our national interest, regardless of the consequences to our personal and political interests. Mr. SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a distinguished constituent of mine, Lieutenant General Henry T. Glisson, who will be retiring from the United States Army on August 31, 2001, after 35 years of outstanding service in the Armed Forces. In addition to his retirement, Lieutenant General Glisson will also step down as Director of the Defense Logistics Agency in July. Lieutenant General Glisson was commissioned a Second Lieutenant, Quartermaster Corps, through the Reserve Officer Training Corps program at North Georgia College, where he also earned his Bachelor of Science Degree in Psychology. He received his Masters's Degree in Education from Pepperdine University in California. His military educational background includes the Quartermaster Officer Basic and Advanced Courses, the Command and General Staff College, and the Army War College. Lieutenant General Glisson was selected as a Regular Army Officer in 1967, and detailed to the Infantry for 18 months, where his early years included assignments as a Platoon Leader for the 549th Quartermaster Company, and Aide-de-Camp for the Commanding General, U.S. Army, Japan. He was an advisor in the U.S. Military Assistance Command in Vietnam, and S4 (Logistics) and Commander, Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion, 5th Infantry. He was also the Commander, Company C, 425th Support Battalion and Commander, 25th Supply and Transport Battalion. In addition, he served as the Executive Officer/S3, 25th Supply and Transport Battalion and the Assistant Chief of Staff, G4 (Supply), 25th Infantry Division, Hawaii. From 1974 to 1977, Lieutenant General Glisson was the Officer-in- Charge of the Cadet Mess, United States Military Academy, West Point, New York. From 1978 to 1982, he served as the S3, Division Support Command; Executive Officer, 701st Maintenance Battalion, and Commander, Material Management Center, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kansas. His next assignment was Commander, 87th Maintenance Battalion, 7th Support Group, United States Army, Europe. He served as Chief, Quartermaster Branch, United States Army Military Personnel Command in Alexandria, Virginia, from 1985 to 1987. He was assigned to the Pentagon from 1987 to 1989 where he served first as Chief, Readiness Team, and then Chief, Troop Support Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Washington, District of Columbia. In 1989 he became Commander, Division Support Command, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colorado. He returned to the Pentagon in 1991, serving as the Executive Officer and Special Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics; His decorations include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit with 5 Oak Leaf Clusters, the Bronze Star with ``V'' Device, the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the Meritorious Service Medal with 4 Oak Leaf Clusters, the Army Commendation Medal, the Air Medal, the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Parachutist Badge, the Parachute Rigger Badge and the Army Staff Identification Badge. On behalf of my congressional colleagues, it is my honor to thank Lieutenant General Henry T. Glisson for his 5 years of service to his country and wish him the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Defense Logistics Agency's 40th anniversary. The Defense Logistics Agency has a distinguished history as the nation's combat support agency. Its origins date back to World War II when America's entrance into the global conflict required the rapid procurement of large amounts of munitions and supplies. When the agency was first founded, managers were appointed from each branch of the armed services for this task. In 1961, the Department of Defense centralized management of military logistics support by establishing the Defense Supply Agency. After 16 years of increasing responsibilities, the Defense Supply Agency expanded its original charter and was renamed the Defense Logistics Agency in 1977. I would like to commend the Defense Logistics Agency's impeccable record of supporting defense and humanitarian missions. It stands as a testament to the agency's commitment to provide seamless support of our armed forces around the world and to extend a helping hand to victims of all types of adversity. As the world has changed and evolved, the Defense Logistics Agency also has adapted and proven its ability to streamline. Agency employees have shown dedication to improving quality, reducing costs and improving responsiveness to their warfighter customer needs. They have also demonstrated their ability to embrace the latest technologies of today's competitive business world, which has resulted in saving the taxpayers billions of dollars. The Defense Logistics Agency's record of achievement serves as an example of government service at its best, highlighted by two Joint Meritorious Service Awards. On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to praise the individual efforts of the men and women involved in the Defense Logistics Agency, and thank them for making the Agency a world-class organization. In honor of the 40th anniversary of the Defense Logistics Agency, we are proud of the Defense Logistics Agency's past endeavors and look forward to a bright and successful future of continued commitment and service to our nation. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in extending congratulations and best wishes to the employees of the Defense Logistics Agency on this memorable occasion and achievement.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about a national priority that too often gets overlooked: humanitarian and development assistance in our foreign operations appropriations bill. That bill will probably be coming to the floor within the next few legislative days. Foreign assistance is an important and effective policy device when words and diplomacy are not enough or when military action is not appropriate. Strengthening U.S. foreign assistance will improve the lives of millions of people around the world and is consistent with America's long history of extending a helping hand to those less fortunate. We, and in fact much of the rest of the world, too easily forget the fact that, over the last half century, U.S. humanitarian and development assistance has successfully elevated the standards of living for millions of people. More than 50 nations have graduated from U.S. assistance programs since World War II, including such nations as France, Spain, Portugal, South Korea, Taiwan, Italy, and Germany. More than 30 of these former aid recipients have gone on to become donor nations themselves. Over the years, foreign assistance programs have helped create some of our closest allies and best trading partners and greatest contributors to the world's economy. For example, the United States now exports to South Korea in just 1 year the total amount we gave that country in foreign assistance during all of the decades of the 1950s and 1960s. But despite substantial global accomplishments, as we enter the new millennium greater disparities exist between the wealthy and the poor than ever before. Of the world's 6 billion people, half live on less than $2 a day, and one-fifth live on only $1 a day. That is more than a billion people, four times the population of the United States living on less than a dollar a day. Two billion people are not connected to any energy system. One and a half billion lack clean water. More than a billion lack basic education, health care or modern birth control methods. Poverty, disease, malnutrition, rapid population growth, and lack of education paralyze billions of people and extinguish hope for a better future. The world's population grows by about 75 million people a year, and most of them will live in the world's poorest countries. If current trends continue, the result will be more abject poverty, environmental damage, epidemics, and political instability; and we are not such an isolated island of prosperity that we are not immune from the ramifications of this desperation. From our own shores to the far reaches of the world, there is ample evidence that we have not been able to use our trade policies as effectively as we would like to address the negative impact of globalization which contributes to these great disparities between the privileged and impoverished. Our failure to respond adequately to these problems is a moral dilemma that should be a pivotal part of our overall foreign assistance and international trade framework. Consider, for example, the plight of the seriously ill in the developing world. It is a testament to the failure of industrialized nations that 80 times more pharmaceutical products are sold in the much less populace west than on the entire continent of Africa. Each year, 300,000 people in Africa develop sleeping sickness, and many of them die from this disease. It is a disease that we could conquer if we had the political will and the research wallet to do it, but we do not. We will apply more of our resources to cure bald American males than African children with sleeping sickness. The most shocking global misallocation of health resources, of course, is the HIV/AIDS pandemic. AIDS is a global crisis which threatens the security of every government in every Nation including the United States. This is not merely a health issue, this is an economic, social, political, and moral issue. AIDS has destroyed societies, destabilized governments and has the potential to topple democracies. According to UNAIDS, nearly 22 million people have lost their lives, and over 36 million people today are living with HIV and AIDS. Fewer than 2 percent of them have access to life-prolonging therapies or basic treatment. The number of new infections of HIV is estimated at 15,000 every day, and it is growing. I am told that nearly a quarter of some of Africa's armies are HIV positive. In a year when President Bush has requested an $8 billion increase in spending over the current $320 billion defense budget, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has called for a global AIDS trust fund to raise $7 billion to $10 billion a year to combat the pandemic. That is almost the same figure as the defense spending increase that we would be adding to a $320 billion budget. This has to be a joint effort among governments, private corporations, foundations, and nongovernmental organizations. We are ranked last among the 22 OECD countries in terms of what we spend on foreign assistance, and we have got to spend more. It is in our interest as well as in the interest of the rest of the world. If we are going to maintain our position as the world's superpower, the most prosperous Nation in the history of western civilization, then we have got to share our resources. If we do not, we are going to pay a price in the long run. These are national priorities, and I hope that they get better addressed in our foreign assistance budget and in our national priorities generally.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by Representatives. Jo Ann Davis, Rick Boucher, Tom Davis, Bobby Scott, and Edward Schrock in introducing the ``Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act.'' This legislation will grant federal recognition to six Indian tribes in Virginia: the Chickahominy Tribe, Chickahominy Indian Tribe Eastern Division, the Upper Mattaponi, the Rappahannock Tribe, the Monacan Tribe, and the Nansemond Tribe. As we approach the 400th anniversary of the first permanent European settlement in North America, it seems appropriate that the direct descendants of the native Americans, who met these settlers, should be recognized by the federal government and that we acknowledge these historic tribes and the significance of their heritage. Together, the men and women of these tribes represent a long neglected part of our nation's history. The Virginia tribes have fought hard to retain their heritage and cultural identity. The legislation we are introducing today describes the history of the tribes and their early treaty rights with the Kings of England and the colonial government. Like much of our early history as a nation, the Virginia tribes were subdued, pushed off their land, and up to the mid 20th Century, denied full rights as U.S. citizens. Despite their devastating losses of land and population, the Virginia Indians successfully overcame the years of racial discrimination that denied them equal opportunities to pursue their education and preserve their cultural identity. Federal recognition would provide what the government has long denied, legal protections and financial obligations, including certain social services and benefits the federal government provides the 558 recognized tribes. At a time when our nation is trying to remedy past injustices to the Indians, Virginia's Indians are denied these benefits because none are recognized by the federal government. Not one of the 558 tribes recognized by the federal government reside in Virginia. I know that the gambling issue may be at the forefront of some members' concerns. In response to this concern, we have worked to close any potential legal loopholes in the legislation to ensure that the state could prevent casino-type gaming by the tribes. Having maintained a close relationship with many of the members of these tribes, I believe they are sincere in their claims that gambling is inconsistent with their values. This position is already borne out by the fact that none of the tribes today engage in bingo gambling despite the fact that they have all established nonprofit organizations that are permitted under Virginia law to operate bingo games despite compelling financial needs that revenues from bingo could address. The real issue for the tribes is one of recognition and the long overdue need for the federal government to affirm their identity as Native Americans. Coupled with this affirmation is an opportunity for the tribes to establish a more equitable relationship with the state and secure federal financial assistance for the tribes' social services, health care and housing needs. Many of their older members face the prospect of retiring without pensions and health benefits that most Americans take for granted. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not in order to force name changes upon local governments when they are opposed to it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Speaker, I would urge this body not to force Washington's local governments to pay $400,000 with local funds to make a name change to a transit station. It does not fit in length. It does not fit with the policy of naming stations after places rather than people. In attempting to honor Reagan, we are contradicting everything he stood for. I have several quotes that I ought not to have to share with the body where President Reagan urged us to respect local government. This is not respecting local government. What is being said is, we stand by Reagan's principles as long as it suits our politics. That is not right. The principle of deference to local government is correct, and in this case it is being violated not only with the naming of the airport, but certainly with the naming of the transit station. I would urge my colleagues to read George Will. I would urge them to read President Reagan's statements, and I would particularly urge them to abide by President Reagan's principles of recognition and respect for local government.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. No, I do not agree. The gentleman's recollection of the facts is not accurate.

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to share with the gentleman the fact that OSHA is exempt from the unfunded mandates law because it is a civil rights provision, and the Federal Government only contributes 6 percent of operating costs to the Metro system. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I would just say to my friend, the gentleman from New York, that you cannot put a price tag on principle. It is a principle, Ronald Reagan's principle, in fact, that we are attempting to uphold here. It is being violated with this action. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order because section 343 of this appropriations act directs the local transit authority to change the name of its transit station at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport with local funds. The cost to comply with this provision is estimated to be $405,476; but the principle being violated is far more costly. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the local jurisdictions which comprised the transit board elected not to change the name of the Metro station at the airport. The board determined that the estimated cost of these changes would be better spent on other priorities. In addition to the rule that requires the request to come from the local jurisdiction in which the station is located, the regional transit board has a long-standing policy of not naming their transit stations after people, preferring instead that they be named after the location that they are serving. At one time many Democrats wanted the RFK Stadium stop to be named after Robert Kennedy, but that suggestion was rejected because Stadium- Armory is more descriptive, and named after a place rather than a person. In my view, that was a correct use of local taxpayer resources. I have to think that if President Reagan were not tragically suffering from Alzheimer's disease, he would join the board and the local governments in resisting these heavy-handed tactics of the Federal Government in forcing the local government to act contrary to its best judgment. In 1964 following the tragic death of President Kennedy, an overzealous Johnson administration by executive fiat renamed Cape Canaveral Cape Kennedy without consulting the local jurisdictions. Had the Johnson administration consulted the local jurisdictions, they would have learned the importance of the name Canaveral dating back to the time of the Spanish explorers and a part of the cape's identity, culture and heritage for the succeeding 400 years. For the next 10 years, the local communities resisted the Federal action, preferring instead to use the term Canaveral. In the early 1970s, the Florida State legislature showed its defiance by enacting legislation to rename the cape Cape Canaveral. By default and Federal inaction, that name still stands. In the instance of the airport, the localities were never consulted on the 1998 act to rename the airport. Had Congress conducted hearings and allowed local elected officials to testify, it would have learned that Washington National Airport already had a name in honor of our first President, George Washington, one of our founding fathers, commander in chief of the Continental Army during the War of Independence, our first President and a resident of northern Virginia, living just down the very road that runs by the airport. The airport was literally built on land owned by George Washington's family. Recognizing the direct relationship and strong historical roots of the property, President Roosevelt asked that the airport's main terminal, completed in 1946, be designed to resemble Mount Vernon. That resemblance is now a historic landmark. Like the renaming of Cape Canaveral, resentment of the name change is on the minds of northern Virginia's local residents. We had a compromise proposal to rename the new terminal after President Reagan. That was rejected even though its existence bears testimony to the success of devolving the operations of the federally owned airport to a local authority. When it was under Federal control, no capital improvements were undertaken. Now the local authority has invested a billion dollars in capital improvements with non-Federal funds. Substantial honors have already been conferred upon President Reagan and more will be. There is nearly a $1 billion Ronald Reagan building and international trade center. Other than the Pentagon, it is the largest Federal building in existence. It is just a few blocks from the White House. We have a Nimitz class aircraft carrier. And, of course, the naming of the airport. President Reagan's legacy will be defined by what he did as President, not by what we do for him. I am sure he would join me in opposing this provision that mandates the local transit authority rename the transit station. In referencing the controversy of the Metro station issue in his weekly column, George Will said: How many ways are there to show misunderstanding of Reagan's spirit? Let us count the zealots' ways. Political freedom implies freedom from political propaganda--from being incessantly bombarded by government- imposed symbols and messages intended to shape public consciousness in conformity with a contemporary agenda. Such bombardment is unquestionably the aim of some Reaganite monument mongers. They have the mentality that led to the lunatic multiplication of Lenin portraits, busts and statues throughout the Evil Empire. Let us resist the urge to establish Ronald Reagan's legacy by renaming everything after the former President, thereby trivializing the principles that he stood for. I urge that we oppose this unfunded Federal mandate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I make a point of order against consideration of the rule (H. Res. 178) because it contains an unfunded Federal mandate. Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Rules Committee may not waive this point of order. In the rule of H. Res. 178, and I quote: ``All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.'' Therefore, I make a point of order that this bill may not be considered pursuant to section 426.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow this House is scheduled to consider the transportation appropriation bill. Within that bill there is a provision requiring that the local governments in the Washington, D.C. area spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own money to add the name of Ronald Reagan to the Metro system every place it says National Airport. Now, the local governments have the authority to do this. When a local government requests a name change, the name of the Metro station within its jurisdiction is changed. That deference to local government is really one of the principal things that Ronald Reagan stood for. But this body, deciding that it did not like the fact that the local government had resisted adding those two additional names, is now going to require them to do so, even though this is not a Federal facility. It gets only 6 percent Federal money, 94 percent of which comes from the riders of the Metro system. So we ought to ask ourselves, do principles only apply when it is convenient, when it suits our politics; or do we vote consistently with principles like deferring to the sovereignty of local governments in opposition to unfunded Federal mandates? Because this is what this is, an unfunded Federal mandate. It would not be done in other congressional districts, but we are going to be doing it over the opposition of this local government and the regional authority. We are going to do it out of what I can only consider to be partisan petty politics. We greatly regret the fact that Ronald Reagan today is suffering from Alzheimer's disease. But I know, and I particularly regret it for one reason because I know that if he were able to, he would adamantly insist the Congress not do this to his name. George Will wrote an editorial making this point: he quoted Cato, the famous Roman, who made the point that he would rather have people asking why is this place not named after Cato, than asking why did they name this coliseum or facility after Cato. In other words, modesty ought to be a hallmark of great people. Resistance to arrogance. Yet that is what this provision is. It is an arrogant Federal imposition upon the will of local government. Local government did not resist adding the name out of resentment of Ronald Reagan, although they certainly resent the fact that they were never consulted when they changed the name of the airport from George Washington's honor to Ronald Reagan. Because it is on the very road that leads to George Washington's home. George Washington's family owned the land that National Airport was built on. In fact, Franklin Roosevelt, when the main terminal was constructed, had it constructed to resemble Mount Vernon. So if they had been consulted, they would have said, well, we really think it should be continued to be named after George Washington since Ronald Reagan never used this airport. It did not offer transcontinental flights. He used Andrews Air Force Base when he was President. So they resent that. But that is not why they resisted this. They resisted because it does not make practical sense. You cannot fit four long names, Ronald Reagan National Airport, on the literature. But most importantly, all the stations are named after places, not after people. When some people wanted to honor Robert Kennedy by naming the Metro station at the RFK Stadium after Robert Kennedy, the Metro Board likewise resisted. They said, no, we name them after places, we will name it Stadium Armory, not after an individual. Likewise, this metro station should be named National Airport. Now, many people will think this is a petty picayune issue, but it is a principle. We voted unanimously against unfunded Federal mandates. This is an unfunded Federal mandate. That principle should be preserved, and so should respect for local government wishes. Mr. Speaker, this Congress should reject this language that purports to honor Ronald Reagan, but actually defiles his legacy.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to respond to the previous gentleman who spoke about the cut to the National Forest Service. If we leave the forests alone, our national forests, they are going to grow just fine, but if the most prosperous nation in the history of western civilization does not make an investment in the arts in this country, then a whole lot of cultural initiatives are going to die on the vine. We cannot let that happen. Mr. Chairman, we have been beating up and gutting the National Endowment for the Arts now for the last several years. Of 117,000 grants that have been awarded by the NEA, fewer than 20 have been controversial. That is a much lower percentage than any of the other arts granting agencies: the Pulitzer prizes, the National Book Awards, you name it. There ought to be some controversy in the arts. But the strongest argument for supporting this increase is our own experience in our own communities. Last week I went to a performance of the Classica Theater in Arlington. Here are a group of Russian emigres who brought with them an invaluable experience in the classical Russian theatrical tradition. What they are doing with a very small grant from the NEA is extraordinarily impressive. The NEA grant gave them the credibility to go out and raise substantially more money. Then they went to the school system, and they found about 100 immigrant kids from Somalia, Bosnia, and Afghanistan, who were suffering from the same kind of language and cultural barriers that they had. These kids were not succeeding in school. They taught them how to succeed through their theatrical tradition. They brought the history of Virginia to life in a play that employed their vocal and dramatic talents. That theater was crowded and not just with their parents. They got a sustained ovation, but most importantly, every one of those kids saw their lives transformed. They were proud of themselves. For a few thousand bucks, we had a wonderful artistic expression by people who now know that they have tremendous potential for the rest of their lives. That is happening in communities all over the country. Mr. Chairman, this is good money. It is a good investment. We ought to be increasing the NEA, not bashing it. The fact is the NEA, the NEH, and our museums are something we ought to be proud of all over the world. The rest of the world is proud. This Congress ought to be proud and support it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to make note of a headline in the Washington Post today: ``Bomb's Fallout Sets Back Goals of Palestinians.'' It goes on to say that Chairman Arafat's call for a cease-fire was seen as the result of shifting opinion. It refers to the suicide bombing last Friday night when 20 innocent teenagers in Tel Aviv lost their lives. It was the single largest act of terrorism since violence began last September. This cycle of violence in the Middle East has got to come to an end. In the aftermath of the tragedy, Chairman Arafat swiftly denounced the attack and called for a cease-fire. I have to commend the Israeli Government for exercising restraint and not engaging in the retaliation that was anticipated following this terrible incident. Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister Sharon under immense pressure showed restraint. The international community stands behind that restraint; but clearly these volatile events require this administration to get involved in the Middle East. Sending CIA Director George Tenet is the right thing to do. We need him in the Middle East. We need United States involvement in the Middle East, and we need to use the Mitchell Commission as the pathway to peace. This violence has to stop.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we are all entitled to our own opinions, but we are not all entitled to our own facts. The facts will show in fact that since President Clinton took office, every one of his budgets was less than the Republican Congress, which came in in 1995 actually appropriated. So I think what this is all about is trying to save us from ourselves, from the Republican standpoint. They are in control of the White House, they are in control of the House, but now what they want to do is to foist upon the American people a true bait and switch tax bill. This is unbelievable. If it did not sunset at the end of 10 years, it would cost $4 trillion for that next 10 years. So what do we do? We assume that we are taking savings, and that enables us to have deep tax cuts for the first 10 years. Let us look at those deep tax cuts. The estate tax, for example, that does not even do a good turn for the very rich. They have to wait 10 years before it is phased in, and then it sunsets in 2010. So in 2009, that is the death bubble year. That is the time they sell their inherited assets, but there is still a tax-free step-up in basis for capital assets in 2009. That is not up until then. People with real money realized what a step-up basis is. They realize this does very little for them, and in fact it does not take care of the gift tax. When we look at the marriage penalty, as the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) said earlier, the marriage penalty starts in 2005. It is fully phased in in 2009. In 2010 it is repealed. How can that be a high priority? When we look at the pension plan, we all voted in favor of it. That does not become effective until the latter part of this decade. Mr. Speaker, this is not a good bill for the American people. It is bait and switch. When they see what was foisted upon them, they will know that the right vote is no on this.