Jim Moran

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 that every year that President Clinton was in office, and the Republicans were in control of the Congress, the Republicans spent more than the Democratic White House asked for. But now, hypocritically, this Republican Congress is trying to deceive the American people into thinking that we can have it all, all the tax cuts we want and all the government we need. This tax cut bill is unbelievably irresponsible. If it did not sunset at the end of 10 years, it would cost $4 trillion for the next 10 years. The only way to get the money for that $4 trillion of lost tax cut revenue is to take it out of the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds just as we did to pay for President Reagan's 1981 tax cut. So what do we do to hide this unavoidable raid on the Social Security Trust Fund? This bill terminates all the tax cuts at the end of the first 10-year forecast period. Let us look at those deep tax cuts. The estate tax, for example, 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 the next year. So in 2009, that is the ``death bubble'' year. That is the only time they can sell their inherited assets, because there is still a full tax-free step-up in basis for capital assets in 2009. After 2009, the step up basis is reduced. People with real money realize what a step-up basis is. They realize that for most of the next decade 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 In 2010 it is repealed.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? The Alternative Minimum Tax takes back \2/3\ of the benefits of this tax cut for taxpayers through the 99th percentile of income, but only takes back 11 percent of the tax cut for the top 1 percent of taxpayers and the top 400 taxpayers don't have to give up anything to the AMT. When we look at the pension plan, that we all voted for that does not become effective until the very 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, a false promise, they will know that the right vote is a no vote on this. It leaves $3\1/2\ trillion dollars of debt as well as our retirement costs to our kids' generation to pay. Yes, this surplus revenue is our money, but the public debt is also ours, it's not our kids' and it's not fair to stick them with it. This phony unfair bill should be defeated.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to say it is nice to have the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) precede me, because this is at a higher level than it normally is. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on a couple of points: the process and the policy. First, in terms of the process, it is important to bear in mind that the location and the design have already been decided. There have been three votes by the National Capital Planning Commission; all of them approved this design, and this site. They did scale it back from its original design. They did compromise, but they came to a conclusion three times. They had 22 public hearings that resulted in that conclusion. The only reason it is not being constructed is, in fact, a technicality. They are arguing that the Harvey Gantz membership, his tenure as chairman should have been expired, but he was not reappointed. In so many commissions all over the metropolitan area and, in fact, all over the country, people continue to serve until they are replaced. It is really a pure technicality on which this has been stopped. I think that contributed to the determination of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) to go forward with this legislation. That decision has been made by the appropriate bodies. Now, let me go to the second issue. Is it appropriate to put this large a memorial to World War II veterans on the Mall? I think the answer is yes, because we are not just talking about American history. We are talking about a turning point in world history. It was the veterans of World War II who did, in fact, save our world for democracy, for the freedoms that we today take for granted. Many of them lost their lives. Many are dying today at a rate of a thousand a day. My father has already passed away, but there are going to be very few left. This is important to them. This is important to the country. It is important to the world that it be in a visible place to show the importance that we attach to what they contributed to world history. Mr. Speaker, I also want to pay some respect to the views of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and those who are concerned about what we are doing to the Mall, because while I recognize that we need a memorial that is obvious, that makes a definitive statement with regard to how we feel about World War II veterans, we have to start thinking twice about what we decide should be on that Mall. This is a sacred national place. The fact is, it is arrogant for this generation to feel that everything that happened in our experience is all that matters. Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying we see too many proposals to put too many things on the Mall. This is going to last for thousands of years, as it should. But there are other generations who also will have things that need to be memorialized on this sacred place, and I would urge some caution to those who have a dozen other memorials they want to put on the Mall. Let us pay some cognizance and respect to future generations. Let us go ahead with this memorial. The Senate compromise is a good one. It gives more latitude, but I think the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) makes some good points that we ought to bear in mind, not just now, but in the future as well.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, there is no debate over whether the federal government is facing a crisis--it is. Reports indicate that about 30 percent of the government's 1.6 million full-time employees will be eligible to retire within five years, and an additional 20 percent could seek early retirement. Furthermore, 65 percent of the Senior Executive Service will be eligible for retirement by 2004. One hearing has been held and numerous editorials have been written about the impending workforce shortage, but very few specific policy changes have been suggested. Today I am introducing legislation that takes a step in the right direction. The FERS Redeposit Act would allow individuals who left the federal government and received a refund of their Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) contributions to reenter government service without losing their accrued annuity. Instead of forfeiting credit earned during their prior service, returning employees would be able to redeposit their cashed out annuity upon reentrance. This benefit is already available to federal employees who are registered under the older Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). Retiring federal employees represent the institutional knowledge and expertise needed to run the government, and we must pro-actively address this drain on our human capital. Creating incentives for federal employees who left for the private sector to return to government service is one way to address this problem. Studies indicate that a key trait of younger workers, who are covered by FERS, is their increased professional mobility. FERS's design implicitly acknowledges this fact by incorporating a portable private sector-style Thrift Savings Plan and 401(K) plan. It is ironic that those federal workers who are in CSRS--most of whom have worked their entire careers in the federal government--have a redeposit option while the younger FERS employees do not. As more and more FERS employees leave the federal government and later wish to reenter federal service, a redeposit option would provide the incentive needed to bring these individuals back to the government. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to make federal service more attractive by cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1885, the 245(i) Extension Act of 2001. Section 245(i) is a vital provision of U.S. immigration law that allows some immigrants on the brink of becoming permanent residents to apply for their green cards while staying in the United States, rather than having to return to their home countries to complete this time consuming process. Unfortunately we allowed this law to expire on April 30, 2001, despite the fact that the INS said they had not had enough time to notify everyone who was eligible to take advantage of this status. Although I believe 245(i) should be permanent, extending it for 120 days through H.R. 1885 is a step in the right direction. If we do not extend this law tonight people who are fully eligible for green cards will be forced to return to their home countries and barred from returning to the United States for anywhere from 3 to 10 years, despite the fact that they have homes, jobs, and families here. I firmly believe that restoring 245(i) is pro-family, pro-business, fiscally prudent, and a matter of common sense. It will allow immigrants with close family members here in the United States to stay with their relatives while applying for legal permanent residence; it will allow businesses to retain valuable employees; and it will provide the INS with millions in annual revenue with absolutely no additional cost to taxpayers. Extending section 245(i) will not give special benefits to illegal immigrants and it will not allow anyone to cut in line ahead of others. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation that is so important to thousands of American families.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 125, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we are all entitled to our own opinion but not to our own set of facts. The fact is, contrary to what the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) said earlier, it was not President Clinton that cut the shipbuilding program, it was actually President Bush that first did that. I want to clear that up for the Record. The facts will bear that out. Mr. Speaker, when the Congressional Budget Office estimated last year that economic growth would increase by two-tenths of a percent on average over the next 10 years, we were faced with a historic choice. When they told us that the surplus estimates would increase by 75 percent up to $5.6 trillion, we had to decide, are we going to use this unprecedented opportunity to sustain the American legacy of leaving a better quality of life to our children than we inherited from our parents, or are we going to take care of ourselves first? The problem with this budget resolution is that it does the latter and not the former. It breaks that American legacy, because we had a historic opportunity to pay off the debt that we incurred during the 1980s. When $3 trillion matures by the end of this decade, that should be our first priority, get rid of that debt. The second priority should be to take care of the baby boomers' retirement. I am a baby boomer. I was born in 1945. I do not want my kids having to pay for my retirement, but this budget resolution is going to force them to, and that is unfair, to leave them with trillions of dollars of debt and the responsibility to pay for our Social Security and Medicare costs. That is wrong. That is what this budget does. That is why it should be defeated.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of the National Science Foundation. The NSF is not only a national treasure, but an example of Federal dollars that reap long-term dividends for our economy and our country. I hope that we can not just support this resolution, but also adequately fund the National Science Foundation over the next 10 years. At a time when our country's future economic growth and prosperity depend on innovation and scientific advances, we should be investing more of the surplus in scientific research and development. Tax cuts will not provide the same level of long-term stimulus to our economy that Federal investments in R&D will yield in the fields of engineering, mathematics, and the sciences. Our children are the message we send to a future we will never see, and that future will be shaped even more by technological innovation than what we have seen in our lifetime. NSF today is developing the next generation Internet as well as leading the way in encouraging young people to pursue academic studies and careers in these technical fields. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the NSF for its efforts to encourage women and minorities to pursue careers in math and science. Every Member of Congress should take the opportunity to promote the National Science Foundation's programs in schools in their districts. Federal investments in technology and basic research programs have been the engine of growth for America's economy. The development of the Internet was achieved through Federal investments in a Department of Defense research program called DARPA Net. I am sure Members are aware of that. But who would have thought that this relatively small investment in DOD and the NSF would have had such a profound effect on every sector of our economy and nearly every aspect of our way of life? Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to represent a district with one of the most vibrant economies in the country, and it is also home to the National Science Foundation. Thanks to the Internet, northern Virginia has become the high tech hub of the East. By investing in R&D in these programs today, we are investing in our future economic potential as a country. Unless we increase the flat budgets which basic research has experienced in the past several years, we cannot expect to yield the kind of scientific advances to ensure the United States remains at the forefront of the global economy. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution that recognizes and acknowledges the 50th anniversary of the National Science Foundation and its achievement and service to the United States. The NSF is not only a national treasure, but an example of federal dollars that reap long-term dividends for our country and our economy. This resolution reaffirms our commitment for the next 50 years to support research, education, and technological advancement and discovery through the NSF. At a time when our country's future economic growth and prosperity depend on innovation and scientific advances, we should be investing more of the surplus in scientific research and development. Tax cuts will not provide the same level of long-term stimulus to our economy that federal investments in R&D will yield in the fields of engineering, mathematics and the sciences. Our children's future will be shaped even more by technological innovation than what we have seen in our lifetime. The NSF is leading the way in encouraging young people to pursue academic studies and careers in these technical fields. I would also like to commend the NSF for its efforts to encourage women and minorities to pursue careers in math and science. Every Member of Congress should take the opportunity to promote the NSF's programs in the schools in their districts. Federal investments in technology and basic research programs have been the engine of growth for America's economy. The development of the Internet was achieved through federal investments in a Defense Department research program called DARPA Net. I am privileged to represent a district with one of the strongest and most vibrant economies anywhere in the United States. Thanks to the Internet, Northern Virginia has become the high-tech hub of the east. Who would have thought this investment in DOD and NSF would have permeated every sector of our economy and way of life? My district is also home to the National Science Foundation, which has been performing amazing work toward establishing the Next Generation Internet as well as fostering the pursuit of science, math, engineering and other technical sciences in this country. By investing in R&D in these programs today, we are investing in our future economic potential as a country. Unless we increase the flat budgets which basic research has experienced in the past several years, we cannot expect to yield the kind of scientific advances to ensure the United States remains at the forefront of the global economy. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and the ongoing work of the National Science Foundation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the occasion of the retirement of Rabbi Marvin Bash to extend my sincere thanks to him for his service to the Eighth District of Virginia. For more than thirty-five years, Rabbi Bash devoted himself to the Arlington-Fairfax Jewish Congregation as Arlington's only congregational rabbi, making him the longest serving active congregational rabbi in the Metropolitan Washington area. As a community leader and activist, he led his community in a fight for civil rights, support for Israel, Jewish education, and tolerance. He taught our children, cared for our sick and elderly, and served as an example of moral leadership to all of us. I am honored to be a part of this celebration of his service. I send Rabbi Bash warm wishes for a blessed retirement and hope that his time as Rabbi Emeritus will be filled with the return of the love and support he has given his community.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, It is with great pleasure that I rise today to honor Sister Eymard Gallagher, who has served as President of Marymount University, located in Arlington, Virginia, since 1993. During her tenure as President, Sister Gallagher has focused her efforts on ensuring that Marymount University becomes recognized as one of the premier higher learning institutions in the Washington metropolitan area, a goal that has been achieved time and time again. One of Sr. Gallagher's many accomplishments includes the establishment of the new University Center, named in honor of Ms. Rose Bente Lee, a generous benefactor, which was constructed and dedicated in 1999. Sr. Gallagher also helped to establish the Marymount University Center for Ethical Concerns, which provides a forum for both students and faculty members alike to exchange ideas and concerns about ethical issues facing society. It also helps to foster an understanding and create a dialogue among students, faculty members and visiting scholars. Since its inception, the University Center for Ethical Concerns has hosted national conferences on numerous issues including Cyber Ethics, Sweatshop Labor, and Managing Health Care Costs. Sr. Gallagher also led the festivities last year when Marymount University had the distinct honor of marking its 50th Anniversary. Through her leadership and innovation, Marymount University has also launched the program, the ``Educator to Educator Initiative'', designed to provide technology training to teachers in the Northern Virginia area. This important educational initiative will enable teachers at collaborating schools with the resources, materials and technical assistance needed to enrich classroom teaching in computers and technology. Sr. Gallagher has always recognized the fact that technology has become increasingly important in our country and to complete in the world-wide market. The ``Educator to Educator Initiative'' program provides students with the opportunity to utilize technology effectively to enhance their learning process. In addition to Sr. Gallagher's achievements on the campus of Marymount, she has also provided leadership to the regional community, serving as a member of the Greater Washington Board of Trade and its Potomac Conference and Workforce Availability Task Force. Sister Gallagher also serves on the boards of the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce; the Northern Virginia Business Roundtable; the Information Technology Association of America Foundation; and First Virginia Bank. Virginia Governor James Gilmore has also appointed Sr. Gallagher to the e-Communities Task Force of the Governor's Commission on Information Technology. I am very proud, Mr. Speaker, that I have been given the wonderful opportunity to honor such a wonderful community leader as Sister Eymard Gallagher. On June 30th of this year, Sister Eymard Gallagher will say goodbye to Marymount University, its faculty and its students. Though she will no longer serve as President of Marymount, she will forever be linked to the University for her leadership and dedication, the perfect example of a true community leader. She embodies the best in the rich tradition of Catholic higher education in America. I wish Sister Eymard Gallagher all the best as she continues on her path of benefitting the lives of others.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on Rollcall No. 87, 1 was unavoidably detained on official business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the enlisted men and women of the United States Air Force, to whom ``Service Before Self'' is more than a slogan, it is an ingrained value that has become the standard by which they live. As I have worked with the Air Force Sergeants Association, I have recognized that same value in their enduring contributions and dedicated efforts to representing their members. Over the past forty years, the Air Force Sergeants Association has become known as ``the voice of the Air Force enlisted corps'' by tenaciously representing those whom they serve. The Air Force Sergeants Association plays a key role in keeping Members of Congress informed of the issues affecting Air Force enlisted members and their families, whether those members are active duty, Air Force component or retiree personnel. These issues range from pay and benefits, to education, to housing, to military health care. Not only does AFSA keep the Members of Congress informed, it keeps its members up-to-date regarding where Congress stands on the critical quality of life issues that so drastically impact upon their welfare. The efforts of the enlisted men and women contribute immeasurably to the success of our United States Air Force. AFSA's dedicated efforts to those men and women have made this association a great success. The Air Force Sergeants Association's 40th Anniversary will occur on May 3rd. I am proud to recognize their efforts and contributions to the Air Force enlisted corps and to the defense of our great nation. I congratulate them on reaching this important milestone.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to correct an inequity that affects a number of spouses of Foreign Service Officers in my district and throughout the nation who served in part-time, intermittent, or temporary positions (PITs) in American embassies and missions from 1989 to 1998. Although countless Foreign Service spouses have given up their own careers to follow officers overseas, many of them hope to continue government service, whether assigned to an embassy or here in Washington. In fact, hundreds have gone to work for the Department of State as civil service employees while their spouses were serving domestically. When the time has come for Foreign Service family members to check their retirement status, many are shocked to hear that the years they worked overseas will not count for retirement purposes. PIT employees are excluded from receiving credit in the Federal Employees Retirement System because of the generally non-permanent nature of their employment. However, Foreign Service spouses who worked as PITs had no choice over the type of work they performed. These individuals had to take PIT positions because these jobs were the only ones available to them while living abroad. They had no choice between part-time, temporary government work and full-time, permanent work. Even those who worked full-time were still classified as PITs. The exceptional nature of their situation is reflected in the Department of State's reclassifying this group of workers in 1998 as falling under the new Family Member Appointment. This position allows them to begin accruing retirement credit. However, these individuals are not allowed to pay back into the FERS for time worked in PIT positions, As a result, many Foreign Service spouses who worked as a PIT between 1989 and 1998 have lost up to nine or ten years of retirement credit. Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of grave consequence to many Americans who devoted their most productive years to public service abroad. Foreign Service Officers and their spouses live lives that often put them in physical danger and cause great emotional distress. One constituent recounted being taken hostage with her husband by terrorists in Peru; while she was released early, she did not know if her husband was alive, injured, or dead. It is simply unfair that these individuals, who have lived and worked under incredibly stressful conditions and who had no choice as to the type of work they performed, are not able to buy back the retirement credit they earned. As I indicated, some of my constituents have lost up to nine years of retirement credit because this provision has not been corrected. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), who has been a former Chair of the Blue Dogs of which Mr. Sisisky was a proud member.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), a member of the leadership team and a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader of the House.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, a man for whom Mr. Sisisky had great respect, not only for the breadth and depth of knowledge on national security affairs, but his own personal integrity.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the senior Democrat of the Committee on Armed Services, on whose committee Mr. Sisisky was so proud to serve.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), Norm Sisisky's neighbor.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), who serves on the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), a member of the Committee on Armed Services, another friend of Mr. Sisisky's.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), another friend of Mr. Sisisky's, specifically a leader of the Blue Dog Coalition and generally a leader of the House as well.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Norman Sisisky was a good man. He was a hard-working colleague, and he was a dedicated public servant to the citizens of his southeast Virginia district. I think we were all struck by his unfailing consideration of his colleagues. He loved this institution. He did not need the salary that it paid, he was independently wealthy, but he lived and talked and acted without pretense. He leaves a great legacy to the people of Virginia and to our whole Nation. He will always be remembered for standing behind our military families and our veterans. Norman was one of the most effective advocates in the Congress for a strong Navy and its shipbuilding program. He knew that this Nation must always remain militarily strong, and through his public service helped in a substantial way to make our military second to none. We will all miss Norman's friendship and his great leadership within the Congress and to the Nation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We know there will be a great many Members at services for Norm, and his spirit will live on in this Chamber as well as all the great accomplishments he achieved for his constituents, for the Commonwealth of Virginia and for the Nation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the chairman of our Policy and Steering Committee on which Mr. Sisisky served.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to give the distinguished ranking member an opportunity to gain his composure. Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect the motivation behind the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) for introducing this legislation, but I strongly disagree with the solution that he proposes. Today's problem was yesterday's solution. The reason we are doing this was because, back in 1969, so many single people complained that they were getting unfairly treated by the Tax Code, and so we tried to fix it. In fact, we did fix it pretty much. I have a Congressional Budget Office study that shows that only 37 percent of married couples actually get penalized, and their penalty is $24 billion. Sixty percent of married couples actually get a bonus for having gotten married, and that bonus totals $72 billion. So there is actually about a $50 billion net bonus going to people for having gotten married. What we are doing to try to fix a problem is to make it worse. The cost of fixing it falls on the children of these very nice people who are getting married. I cannot imagine somebody not getting married because of some tax penalty. What happened to love and romance, for crying out loud. The fact is this is wrong. I do not even agree with the Democratic substitute. We ought to do the right thing and simplify the Tax Code and not do this kind of stuff.