Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, Cesar Chavez was one of the greatest labor leaders of our time. His courage was unbelievable. Before he stood up to some of the most selfish and apparently uncaring farmers, he recognized that there were thousands, hundreds of thousands of people who were absolutely powerless, had no recourse, no redress for their grievances, were being exploited in our economy, particularly the agriculture economy. Mr. Speaker, Cesar Chavez united them. We as a Nation, many of us, boycotted grapes and lettuce and felt that we were part of a movement greater than ourselves, and, in fact, in retrospect it was. Many good farm workers were even worse treated. They were indentured servants. They would travel up the migrant stream, their children would have to follow with them. The children would get no education. The few children of farm workers who got an education, it would not be from bilingual teachers. They lived in hovels off the road where no one would see them. They were huts, really, that were no more than chicken coops, many of them. They would have to borrow money for their rent and food and necessities. The harder they worked, many farmers would reduce the piece rates so they would always be in debt. They would have to come back the next year to pay off their debt. This became a tradition, an institution of exploitation. Cesar Chavez gave these families hope. He was in the American tradition. I know there are still many families who hate him today for the fact that he turned around a system that was greatly to their benefit, but this was a man that was American in all of the finest traditions. We look to him for inspiration, and I would hope that we will find ways to continue to honor him. Many of the children and grandchildren of the families that he organized now have a good education, have broken into the middle class, and have control over their lives, and they will soon forget why it is that they have a piece of the American pie now. They have some control over their lives. But in many instances, it is because of the courage, the character, the leadership of Cesar Chavez. So I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for being here, and his colleagues from Texas and California, and I know there are many other colleagues, if the House was still in session, who would be here, but who had to leave. This House bears a real debt of gratitude to Cesar Chavez, as does the Nation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and valued member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things that this rule on the budget resolution could have done to prevent us from going into another decade of deficits comparable to what happened after the 1981 tax cut, but it does not allow any such protections to even be debated and voted on. For example, it could have put in triggers that said that if the surplus estimates do not materialize, then we will not cut taxes as deeply as is envisioned in this budget resolution, but it kept those triggers out. What this budget resolution says is that if the surplus estimates go up, we can increase the tax cut; but if the surplus estimates go down, we cannot reduce the tax cut. That is a recipe for financial ruin, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, since the tax cuts passed the House floor last month, the stock market has lost trillions of dollars of equity; corporations have come in with dramatically reduced earnings. None of that has been incorporated into the Congressional Budget Office estimates. Those stock market losses are going to be deducted against next year's income taxes due, and yet we are acting today as though the rosy economic scenceric of the last eight years is going to continue indefinitely. If the CBO growth estimate is off by even eight-tenths of a percent, $4 trillion of this projected surplus vanishes. The fact is that we have a very different economy, a worse economy, a slower economy than is estimated in the 16 year surplus estimates upon which this budget resolution is based. All we are saying is, do not cut taxes if it means that our kids are going to have to pay off more debt, if our kids are going to have to provide for our Social Security and our Medicare because we have had to raid the trust funds in order to pay for a tax cut. That is fiscally irresponsible and it is selfish for the baby boom generation to reward ourselves and pass the bill onto our kids. All we are saying is, cut taxes, but only cut taxes if we can afford to, only if our kids do not have to pay for those tax cuts. This budget resolution does not do that. This budget resolution puts us right back into where we were in the 1980s, but this time the baby- boom generation is not around to pay off that debt, to put us back onto a road of fiscal responsibility. This time the baby-boom generation retires after this 10-year projection is over. In 2011, the baby boomers retire. They are going to want their Social Security and Medicare, and they will have the votes to make their children pay for those benefits. Our kids are going to have to come up with that money. This is so irresponsible to do to the next generation of Americans. The rule should be defeated.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the gentleman from Kansas for yielding to me, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, our highest, most urgent priority in this budget resolution must be debt reduction. There is $3.7 trillion outstanding of public debt. If we do not pay it off, who does? Our children do. We are paying over $200 billion a year in interest on that debt today. It makes far more sense to make debt reduction our priority, because if these surplus estimates do not get realized over the next decade, then we are not going to be able to pay off the debt. If we enact the tax cut, we know this Congress is not going to raise taxes again, so what we are going to do is raise Social Security and force our children to pay off the debt as well as pay for our retirement. That is wrong. The Deputy Undersecretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance testified before the Senate Committee on the Budget last week that of the $3.7 trillion of public debt outstanding that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) referred to, $3 trillion will mature by the end of this decade.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I certainly applaud the leadership that has been demonstrated by the gentleman from South Carolina. He is extraordinarily knowledgeable on defense authorization, as well as our priorities for this budget resolution. That is why I oppose this budget resolution, because it makes deep tax cuts at the expense of critically needed programs. Let me focus primarily on the shortfalls in the Defense Department that this budget resolution will greatly exacerbate. Just a few months ago, the service chiefs testified that there was a need for an emergency supplemental appropriations bill of $7 billion, just to cover urgent shortfalls in the Defense Department. One of the most critical funding deficiencies expected this year is a shortfall of $1.4 billion in the defense health program. That is responsible for providing health care to all active-duty personnel and military retirees and their family members. Dr. Clinton, the head of health programs for the Defense Department, just testified last week that there is a $1.4 billion shortfall this year, and that money is not provided in this resolution for next year. Senator Domenici wrote on March 15 to Secretary Rumsfeld saying that before the end of this year it may become necessary to truncate day-to- day health care operations and delay implementation of authorized programs for a large number of beneficiaries. The Democratic budget provides for this $7.1 billion defense supplemental and provides $48 billion more for defense over the next 10 years than the Republican budget. Of this amount, the $1.4 billion is for urgently needed funding for health care and $1 billion is for ensuring that the full pay raise Congress authorized last year is provided. Madam Chairman, it is imperative that we address these shortfalls now. Already the Defense Department has confronted shortages of medical equipment, deteriorating military hospitals, as well as shortfalls in the direct care system and payments for managed care support contracts. We do not have the money in this budget resolution to fulfill our responsibilities to implement the senior pharmacy benefit that is scheduled to go into effect in the next few weeks, and the TRICARE for Life benefit for military retirees over the age of 65. This budget resolution assumes a base that is inadequate in fiscal year 2001 and shows virtually no increase in subsequent years. Beyond the defense health care problems that we have, we cannot afford to shortchange the defense priorities that are necessary in this complex world; and by that I refer to cyber-terrorism, biological and chemical threats that are posing new dangers to our national security. Modernization requires a continued commitment to research and development and to technologies and equipment that will ensure that our armed services maintain their global dominance. Developing the next generation of weapons programs will also require difficult decisions involving priorities and capabilities. It is unrealistic for this administration to assume that their top-to-bottom review conducted in an academic manner without thorough consultation with Congress and the armed services will effectively transform our military to meet the challenges of the next century without adequate funding. This budget resolution does not provide that adequate funding. We are not going to cancel procurement of an aircraft carrier or the joint strike fighter program and think that it will generate enough savings to pay for other programs or not meet an unmet security need. Madam Chairman, investing in our national security should not be a partisan issue. Not addressing the current year's funding deficiencies in this budget resolution provides an unrealistic budget projection from the outset and directly affects our military readiness and the quality of life of our troops and families. Madam Chairwoman, this alone is reason to reject this budget resolution. Madam Chairman, I yield back my time to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time, who has shown such an interest throughout Latin America, and to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), who has really personally extended himself to make a real difference in the lives of millions of people in Latin America and particularly in El Salvador. I am glad to obviously support this resolution expressing sympathy for the victims of the devastating earthquakes, two of them, with approximately 1,200 people having been killed, injuring thousands more, and displacing over a million individuals. El Salvador has faced unbelievable hardships and challenges over the last several years. Think about Hurricane Mitch just 2 years ago, and now two deadly earthquakes just seem like a horrible twist of fate. It is encouraging to see that the Bush administration is granting extension of the temporary protected status for Salvadorans living in the United States. That affects thousands of Salvadorans in my district alone, who are working very hard not just to make ends meet for their own families but to give everything they can possibly afford back to their country people in El Salvador. In yesterday's Washington Post, they estimated that as much as $2 billion is being sent home. Now, that might be one thing if it was coming from some constituents, for example the Irish in America, who by now ought to be doing pretty well, but this is coming from the Salvadorans, who are in very low-paid work. I caused a little laugh there; but everybody knows it is true, and we ought to do more. But this is coming from people who are really providing underpinning for our economy. They are certainly contributing more than they are taking out of our economy; and yet with everything they can afford, they are sending it back. My point is they are doing their part. We need to do our part for our neighbors. What we really need, as important as this resolution of sympathy is, we need a supplemental of a substantial amount to help the people in El Salvador. We ought to do it now. We put $6 billion into supporting right-wing dictatorships. Now that they have a stable economy and society, we ought to provide substantial funds to help our neighbors.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 200th anniversary of Arlington's founding. This historical celebration commemorates what President George Washington, patriot George Mason, and other Virginians began when they donated land to the Federal Government to establish the new Nation's Capital. Arlington County has had a colorful and illustrious past and holds the promise of an even greater future. Few other counties are as intricately linked to as many historic events of national significance as Arlington. From the first recorded encounter between Captain John Smith and the Nocostin Indians at present day Roosevelt Island; to prominent local residents who were integral in the fight for independence and our early history as a new republic; to Arlington's role as a staging ground for Union forces during the Civil War; to becoming home for the bureaucracy created during the New Deal; to the country's role today as a national model for smart growth and commitment to community and civic pride, Arlington stands as a model for the rest of the Nation. As colorful and glorious as the past has been, we can look forward to an even brighter future. Today's celebration not only acknowledges the enormous contributions Arlington has made to our democracy but also provides us with an opportunity to highlight the long overdue and comprehensive story of that same legacy. Arlington House is known for being situated on land that once belonged to the commander of the Continental Army, but it was also home of the Confederacy's most famous general. It was perhaps the Capital's, and therefore the Nation's, most visible reminder of the South's most ``peculiar institution.'' A plantation fueled by slave labor, Arlington House stood within view of those who debated the Missouri Compromise and constructed the Dred Scott decision. It was also the site where the Federal Government established one of the first Freedman's Village providing social services, education, and vocational training to former slaves whose later influence and success still touch us today. I want to compliment the collective wisdom of the Arlington County Board and the Bicentennial Task Force for their decision to use this celebration as an occasion for launching efforts to help restore Arlington House and reopen the slave quarters. The two surviving quarters, which have been closed and boarded up for years, will now be reopened and include interpretative displays of the Freedman's Village and its important impact on Arlington. From this point forward, the Nation will know that the ground where Robert E. Lee stood was also the land upon which Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth tread. It is a gift I am pleased to support and hope to expand upon with my colleagues in Congress, as we attempt to procure additional Federal resources. Arlington should be proud of its great past, but because of its commitment to recognize and celebrate the contributions of all its residents, we will surely experience an even greater future.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this is not a perfect bill, the underlying bill; but I think it is an important bill to pass. It is a bill that received the overwhelming bipartisan support of this House and of the Senate last year. Last year, because this bill is almost identical, it is relevant to recognize 96 Democrats voted for this bill last year. That is bipartisan. The reason that they did so was that they recognized that the American public wants a fair system. They want people to be able to get a new fresh start. They do not want a system that lends itself to abuse. That is basically the problem that we face today. Mr. Chairman, back in 1980 there were only about 300,000 people that filed for bankruptcy. In 1998, 1.4 million people filed for bankruptcy. That is an enormous number. Something is wrong. What is wrong is that it has become too easy to wipe out your debts. What is particularly galling is that this cost does not go away. It is not just limited to the bankruptcy court. We all pay for it. The American family today pays about $400 more per year to cover the cost of these bankruptcies. That is $400 that families who are paying their bills get stuck with that they ought not to. Approximately 100,000 people file for bankruptcy each year who could in fact pay off their debt, but they are avoiding about $1 billion annually of debt that they could pay off that they do not because the system has not been fixed. That is what this bill would do. It would fix the system. It is a needs-based bankruptcy plan. Mr. Chairman, I have to tell my colleagues when there is a bill that is able to put child support and spousal support ahead of lawyer's fees, you had better get it passed immediately because once the trial lawyers find out that it is even ahead of lawyer's fees I do not know how long it will last, but we ought to do it. We have a debtor's bill of rights here that addresses a number of the problems that we have had in terms of credit cards. Some people are taking these credit cards in, they sign up, they max it out whatever they can charge. They pile debt up, and then they get themselves relieved from paying off their debt; and oftentimes they can go right back to doing it all over again. It needs to be fixed. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a good, balanced, bipartisan bill to fix it. I think we ought to vote for the underlying bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Black History Month and to salute the millions of African-Americans who have made enormous contributions to our culture. We in the Eighth District of Virginia are particularly proud to celebrate Black History Month in 2001, for during the past few months Americans have become familiar with one of the greatest stories of racial reconciliation in our nation's history. I refer to ``Remember the Titans,'' which is the story of the integration of the T.C. Williams High School football team. ``Remember the Titans'' was released last fall by Disney Pictures and features actors Denzel Washington and Will Patton. In 1971, the Alexandria City Council voted to integrate T.C. Williams High School, a decision that was criticized by many in the community, as T.C. Williams was one of the first schools to be integrated in the Commonwealth of Virginia. We were still in the midst of the Vietnam War, and on the domestic front, relations between those of different races were strained and unstable. During the summer of 1971, Coach Herman Boone, an African-American who had been coaching in North Carolina, secured the Head Coach position at T.C. Williams High School, a decision that infuriated the white football players and coaching staff already in place at the school. Many of the football players threatened to leave the team and not play football, rather than play for a black coach. Mr. Bill Yoast had been the Assistant Coach at T.C. Williams High School and was next in line to be named Head Coach when Coach Boone arrived on the scene. Coach Yoast remained the Assistant Coach of the football team, and he too struggled with the decision that had been made, even contemplating retiring from coaching football. After a rocky beginning, Coach Boone and Coach Yoast focused on the same goal: to have the best football team in Virginia, and the country, a goal which they achieved. The Titans won every game that they played, and ended the season as the second best high school team in the nation. The 1971 T.C. Williams High School football team embodies the ideals we celebrate during Black History Month. In a sense, the football players along with Coaches Boone and Yoast became a family, one which united not only their divided school, but their community as well. Friendships were formed between black and white students that are sustained to this day. We should recall the lessons of the Titans today: to look beyond the outward appearance, and to look instead, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. taught us, at the content of character. The integration of T.C. Williams High School in 1971, and the peaceful transition that followed after the community as a whole gathered behind the team, paved the way for other schools in Northern Virginia to integrate. I am extremely proud to represent the City of Alexandria and especially T.C. Williams High School, which today remains one of the most culturally diverse high schools in Virginia, where 40 different languages are spoken daily by students from over sixty countries. The student body at T.C. Williams High School is very reflective of the diversity, and more importantly, of the unity, of our great nation. I am very proud, Mr. Speaker, that the story of Coach Herman Boone and this remarkable team will forever be a part of Black History Month.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the most important issue facing this Congress is the amount of the tax cut that has been proposed by the President and by the majority party, and a majority of Americans apparently think that this tax cut would be in their best interests. Today I would like to make five points why I disagree, and try to explain why I think a cut of this proposed magnitude is potentially disastrous. The five points that I would like to make are, one, CBO's 10-year surplus projections are highly unreliable; secondly, the tax cut is skewed to benefit those who need the assistance the least; third, I believe that this tax cut is fiscally irresponsible in that it is substantially understated; fourthly, the tax cut ignores the financial catastrophe that we know is going to occur when the baby boom generation retires in another few years; and, fifth, it does not address what I believe is our highest priority, which is to pay off our public debt before we do anything else with the surplus. On point number one, Mr. Speaker, the projections upon which we assume that we can afford the tax cut are highly dependent upon economic performance that is, at best, uncertain in the near term, and really has no credible basis over the long term. CBO has increased their estimates from 2.8 percent to a little above 3 percent annual growth, but if they are off by as much as eight-tenths of one percent, $4 trillion of the surplus goes away. GAO Comptroller David Walker testified before the Congress that ``no one should design tax or spending policy pegged to the precise numbers in any 10-year forecast.'' He also said it is important to remember that while projections for the next 10-year period look better, the long-term outlook looks much worse. Mr. Speaker, secondly, it is important to understand that the effect of the tax cut applies primarily to those who in fact pay the most taxes. But the top 1 percent, people whose incomes are over $320,000 a year, now pay about 21 percent of the taxes. One percent pays 21 percent of the total Federal taxes; yet they would get 43 percent of the benefit. Eighty percent of the population would receive less than 29 percent of the entire tax cut benefit. Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, while the tax plan proposes a $1.6 trillion cut, it does not include the additional interest costs that are incurred because it is not applied to paying down the debt. It also raises the number of people who will be subject to the alternative minimum tax from 2 million today to 27 million households by 2010. Virtually everybody over $75,000 over a year in income is going to get hit with the alternative minimum tax. They are going to be screaming at the time, and we are going to have to fix it at a substantial cost that is not factored in here. I should also say the estimates do not protect military retirement nor civil service retirement. Fourthly, the baby boomer crisis. Once the baby boom generation that was born right after World War II starts to retire, we are going to be in the position of only three workers for every retiree. That creates a situation that is untenable. So after we get out past 2011, when all these estimates are pegged, we are going to find that for the next life span we are as much as $22 trillion short in Social Security and $12 trillion short in Medicare. The best thing we could do right now is to currently fund that unfunded Social Security liability. If we put $3.1 trillion aside, as we would do if we were facing this in our own family or in a private corporation, we could fund that unfunded liability and not leave that burden to our children and grandchildren to do so. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, let me say that our highest priority should be to pay down the debt. That is the best way we can invest in our future, and that is the best gift we can give to our children and grandchildren. We do it in our own family; we ought to do it in the Nation's best interest as well.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to Charles T. Harris--one of our Federal Government's finest public servants and a long time resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia. This March he will retire from an exceptionally distinguished career of service to his country. He has served our nation both in uniform and as a career civil servant for over 38 years. He has been an exceptional leader and manager of the nation's treasure and his efforts have materially strengthened our national defense. It gives me pride to have the opportunity to honor him today for his tremendous accomplishments. Mr. Harris began his career in public service in the summer of 1962 when he entered the Corps of Cadets at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York. After graduation, he served ten years on active duty including two tours of duty with the U.S. Army in Vietnam, first as a platoon leader and then as a company commander. After leaving the Army, Mr. Harris began his civilian career in the Department of the Army as a supervisory budget analyst responsible for the Army's logistics programs. In 1985, Mr. Harris began work in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), where since 1988 he has served in the Senior Executive Service in various leadership roles, including: Associate Director for Air Force Operations, Deputy Director of the Revolving Funds Directorate, Deputy Director and then Director for Operations and Personnel. Mr. Harris' professionalism and significant contributions have been recognized by every administration he has served. Among his many awards, he has received the Outstanding Department of the Army Civilian Award (the PACE Award), the Presidential Rank Award for Meritorious Service, and most recently, the Department of Defense Distinguished Civilian Service Award, the highest award granted to civilian employees in DoD. Through his civilian career as a financial manager, Mr. Harris has steadily and continuously accumulated a comprehensive knowledge of the workings of the Federal budget process particularly as it pertains to financing the nation's military forces. Year after year, Mr. Harris has succeeded in transforming the administration's defense priorities into a clear, defensible and compelling, articulation of the resource requirements necessary to execute the nation's peacetime and wartime military operations. In his role as Director of the Operations and Personnel Directorate, he is directly responsible for fully 65 percent of the Department of Defense annual budget. He has become an acknowledged expert on Military Readiness, Recruiting and Retention, Quality of Life, Contingency Operations, Military Healthcare, Training and Education. Mr. Harris is an imaginative leader and exceptional manager who inspires his people to produce work of the highest quality. Throughout his career he has repeatedly sought out opportunities to materially improve the ways in which the Department of Defense allocates its resources to effectively execute the National Military Strategy. By actively working with stakeholders in the Congress and throughout the Department of Defense he has successfully streamlined and rationalized the submission of budget justification materials so that they are both more timely and more useful to decision makers. Senior leaders, both in the Congress and in the Department of Defense have benefitted enormously from his unsurpassed experience, wisdom and clarity. His efforts have enabled our nation's leaders to make the most effective use of defense resources to ensure America's military strength in the twenty-first century. Mr. Harris is retiring from a career of exemplary merit and has earned the profound respect of a grateful nation. On behalf of my colleagues, I thank him for his service to our country and wish him well on his retirement.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the McLean Highlanders Marching Band for winning first place in the Class IV Open Championship competition sponsored by the U.S. Scholastic Band Association. On November 3, 2000, the Highlanders not only delivered the overall winning performance within their grouping, but they also were given the best music award and the Marine Corps ``Expirit de Corps'' award for best team spirit and discipline. During the month of August when most high school students were still enjoying their summer vacations, every member of the Highlander Band and their dedicated parents began preparations for this competition. Under the guidance of band director Kirchenbauer and his support staff, the group devoted countless hours of practice throughout the year to learn and perfect their award-winning musical program and marching routine. Mr. Speaker, a tribute to the McLean Highlander Band would not be complete without mentioning the support of Dr. Donald Weinheimer, McLean High School Principal, and the tireless efforts of the McLean High School Band Parents Association. The McLean community is proud of every member of the high school band that contributed to their award-winning performance. Accordingly, I join the students of McLean High School and the U.S. Scholastic Band Association in saluting the McLean Highlander Marching Band on a job well done.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today, I am reintroducing legislation to correct a long-standing inequity that affects a great number of Federal retirees in my district and throughout the Nation who have served for a portion of their careers in a part-time capacity. I am pleased that Mr. Davis of Virginia, Mr. Wynn, Ms. Norton, Mrs. Morella, Mr. Wolf, and Mr. Gilman have joined me as original cosponsors of this important legislation. The current retirement formula for Federal workers with part-time service was enacted by Congress in 1986 as a provision of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) (P.L. 99-272). For the most part, the reforms contained in COBRA were fair. They ensured an equitable calculation for all employees hired after 1986 and prevented part-time employees from gaming the system in order to receive a disproportionately higher benefit. The 1986 reforms were based on a procedure developed and recommended to the Congress by the General Accounting Office (GAO). In a nutshell, the new methodology determines the proportion of a full-time career that a part-time employee works and scales annuities accordingly. Under the formula, a part-time worker's salary is calculated on a full-time equivalent basis (FTE) for retirement purposes. Thus, a worker's ``high-three salary'' could occur during a period of part-time service. This often happens when a senior level worker cuts back on his or her hours to care for an ill spouse or deal with other personal matters. Many of the people in this situation are women. The problem is that the 1986 law had unintended and often unfair consequences for workers hired before 1986 who have some part-time service after 1986. Specifically, according to the way the law has been implemented by OPM, some part-time workers are not able to apply their full-time equivalent (FTE) salary to pre-1986 employment. This effectively limits their ability to receive the advantage of their ``high-three average'' salary for their entire careers. The reason for this inequity can be traced to subsection (c) of Section 15204 of COBRA. It provides that the new formula shall be effective with respect to service performed ``on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.'' Whether this was a drafting error, or whether OPM has taken an unnecessarily restrictive reading of the statute is hard to determine. What is clear is that the current practice is plainly contrary to the intent of the Congress, which was to grandfather existing employees into the new system and to ensure that no Federal workers would be harmed by changes in the retirement formula. In a letter dated February 19, 1987 to then-OPM Director Constance Horner, the Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, The Honorable William D. Ford, objected to this anomalous and unfair result. He wrote: As in many other instances involving benefits, Congress chose to protect or to ``grandfather'' past service--to apply the new benefit formula only to future service rather than previously performed service under the older, more generous formula. This policy is often adopted to avoid penalizing individuals through the retroactive application of changes not anticipated by them. (As a measure of fairness, the policy of prospectivity is often applied to benefit improvements as well.) Notwithstanding Chairman Ford's efforts to clarify congressional intent, this inequity has continued for 14 years. OPM has publicly acknowledged that there is a problem with COBRA. Director Lachance stated publicly in a letter to Chairman Fred Thompson of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs: ``I agree that an end-of-career change to a part-time work schedule can have an unanticipated adverse effect on the amount of the retirement benefit.'' She also acknowledges in that same letter that a comparable bill in the other body, S. 772 introduced by Senator Robb, ``would eliminate the potential for anomalous computations by providing that the full time salary would be applicable to all service regardless of when it was performed while the proration of service credit would apply only to service after April 6, 1986 [the date of enactment].'' This is precisely what the bill we are offering today does. It allows the retirees affected by this inequity to have their full-time equivalent salary for their high 3 years to apply to their entire careers, not just the portion after 1986. My bill differs from S. 772 in that it places the burden on affected retirees to request a recalculation of benefits. This is coupled with a requirement that OPM conduct a good faith effort to notify annuitants of their right to obtain a recalculation. For all future retirees, benefits will be calculated in accordance with the new formula. This bill is identical to a measure I sponsored last year. That legislation was cosponsored by seven members of the House and was endorsed by the National Association of Federal Workers in July. NARFE has made the bill a high priority. Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of great consequence to many Americans who devoted their most productive years to public service. Some of my constituents have annuities that are thousands of dollars less than they would be under my bill. As I indicated, a disproportionate share of these retirees appears to be women, who left the federal service to care for others. It is particularly appropriate that we address this issue now, as changing work-force needs and lifestyles make part-time service more popular, both from the standpoint of the worker and the employee. Many of the anticipated work-force shortages that are anticipated in the federal civil service can and should be met with part-time workers. I am concerned that they will not be so long as the anomalous and unfair provisions of P.L. 99-272 are allowed to stand. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the rest of the world will wake up tomorrow morning and read in the obituaries about Julian Dixon's leadership on appropriations and on the Intelligence Committee and the Ethics Committee. They may figure out that he had a 100 percent perfect voting record on civil rights, on education, on the environment, on labor issues. They may find out about his funding of the tools for tolerance program at Simon Wiesenthal Center or the Angel Gate Academy for at-risk youth or any number of dozens of other things that he started in his constituency. But they will not get a full flavor for what he meant to this body, his credibility, his courage, his heroism, his decency. That is his legacy. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express particularly on behalf of one of our colleagues, the Delegate from the District of Columbia, her longtime aide, Donna Brazile, is in the cloakroom here and just told us that Eleanor is on a plane but wishes so much that she could be here to express her sadness, her grief, and her appreciation for all that Julian Dixon has meant to the District of Columbia. D.C. grieves today at having lost one of its strongest, most committed friends, advocates, believers. Julian Dixon knew more about the District of Columbia and what needed to be done legislatively than any other Member of this body with the possible exception of its own Delegate. He used his influence thanklessly to advance the cause of people who did not have a sufficient voice within this body. He used his influence to give them that voice. When I became ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on D.C., it soon became so apparent that it was Julian that had laid the foundation for the most important issues, who understood. His knowledge, his intellectual honesty and his courage had made such a difference. And when there was an issue that no one else was willing to take on, let alone win, it was Julian that would take up that issue. When he realized that more women were dying from AIDS as a result of dirty needle exchange in D.C. than anyplace else in the country, he knew that this was a thankless issue that nobody wanted to take on, but Julian did. He stood up in that full Committee on Appropriations. Our ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) described what would happen when Julian stood up. He commanded attention because of his articulation but most importantly because of his credibility, his courage. He won that issue. Nobody else could have won that issue. But the Members had such deep respect for Julian Dixon. That is his legacy. It is a legacy that gives all of us a model, a model personally and professionally. He is what we need to be. Julian, we thank you for all you have been to this body and this country.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, with that confirmation, I have no objection. I am glad to see this pass with unanimous consent of both parties. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would just like a statement from the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) to make it clear for the record that there are no material changes to the bill as reported out by the conference in agreement with the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman if he wants to give those assurances.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an exceptional leader in recognition of her remarkable service to her country, both on active duty and in the reserves, and as a staunch advocate of improved health care benefits for members of the uniformed services community. CDR Virginia Torsch's truly distinguished record merits special recognition on the occasion of her departure from The Retired Officers Association (TROA) to a position in the private sector. CDR Virginia Torsch received her Bachelor of Science degree in Zoology from the University of Maryland in 1978, and completed her Master's of Health Science in International Health at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and Hygiene, Baltimore, Maryland in 1982. A year later, in 1983, CDR Torsch became a commissioned officer in the U.S. Navy's Medical Service Corps. She was sent to the Naval Hospital, Pensacola, Florida where she served eleven months as the Assistant Comptroller. She then transferred to the Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center, Fort Detrick, Maryland as a medical intelligence research specialist, writing medical studies on countries in Southeast Asia. Three years later in 1987, CDR Torsch transferred to the Pentagon where she served on the Navy Surgeon General's staff as the Assistant for Fleet Support in the Medical Operations and Planning Division. During this tour, CDR Torsch also completed the Naval War College's seminar program, graduating with distinction in 1989. In November 1990, CDR Torsch affiliated with the Navy Reserves where she is currently attached to the National Naval Medical Command Bethesda 106 unit. In December, 1990, after leaving active duty, CDR Torsch joined the Strategy 2000 staff at the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA). While there, she assisted with the development and publication of ``Strategy 2000: The VA Responsibility in Tomorrow's National Health Care System'', which analyzed the potential impact of national health care reform on the VA medical care system. CDR Torsch also tracked and analyzed health care reform legislation and initiatives, both at the national and state levels. In October, 1992, CDR Torsch joined the staff at The Retired Officer's Association as the Assistant Director of Government Relations, Health Affairs, where for the last eight years she has worked tirelessly to advance legislation guaranteeing lifetime health care for uniformed services beneficiaries. Because of her strong health care background, CDR Torsch was made TROA's principal representative to The Military Coalition's Health Care Committee. To illustrate the significance of this assignment, it is helpful to note that The Military Coalition (TMC) is a Shortly after beginning her liaison with TMC, CDR Torsch was elected to the position of the Co-chairman of the TMC Health care Committee because of her ability to articulate forcefully the urgency of providing lifetime health care to members of the greatest generation and their successors and in recognition of her practical insights on the best legislative strategy to achieve that goal. CDR was a major contributor to the Coalition's Health Alternative Reform Taskforce (CHART) study, which identified several innovative ways to provide lifetime health care to military beneficiaries who were locked out of military treatment facilities when they attained Medicare eligibility. That landmark study became the blueprint for several laws that were enacted in the last five years. In 1997, Congress enacted a three-year demonstration of a concept called Medicare subvention, through which the Health Care Financing Administration would reimburse the Department of Defense (DOD) for care provided to Medicare-eligible members of the uniformed services community in Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs). That program, now called TRICARE Senior Prime, was included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and is currently in operation at 10 MTFs. Over the years, CDR Torsch and other members of The Military Coalition have worked very closely with my staff in developing an option to allow Medicare-eligible service beneficiaries to enroll in the Federal Employees Health benefits Program (FEHBP), the same program that is available to virtually all Federal civilian employees, Congressional staff members and Members of Congress. In 1998, an amendment to the FY 1999 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which I sponsored along with my distinguished colleagues, William Mac Thornberry and J.C. Watts, provided authority for DOD to conduct a three-year demonstration to determine the financial and other impacts of allowing Medicare-eligible service beneficiaries to enroll in FEHBP. The test of FEHBP-65, as it is called, is also underway at 10 locations around the country. I am convinced the results of this demonstration will prove conclusively that FEHBP is a cost-effective and viable option that should be made available to all retirees. The FY 1999 NDAA also provided authority to conduct two other demonstrations for Medicare-eligible retirees which CDR Torsch and the coalition collaborated on with the Armed Services Committees: TRICARE as second-payer to Medicare; and the enrollment in DOD's mail order and retail pharmacy programs. CDR Torsch's unwavering efforts to provide a meaningful health care benefit to Medicare-eligible members of the uniformed services community culminated this year when Congress established in the FY 2001 National Defense Authorization Act a lifetime entitlement to TRICARE for service retirees, their family members and survivors. Effective on October 1, 2001, the TRICARE-for-Life option will not require participants in this program to pay enrollment fees or deductibles. CDR Torsch and the Military Coalition also advocated successfully to have Congress offer a TRICARE prescription drug benefit in the final FY 2001 NDAA. As evidence of her commitment and effectiveness in advocating on behalf of military retirees, Congress also adopted a key recommendation offered by CDR Torsch in her testimony earlier this year that beneficiaries should not be required to pay enrollment fees or premiums to participate because doing so would deny this benefit to those who need it most. Taken together, these initiatives comprise the most significant improvements in military health care ever undertaken. Thanks in large measure to the dedication by CDR Torsch, TROA and other advocates of military retirees, Congress has demonstrated its commitment to providing lifetime health care to our nation's military personnel and their families. I commend their involvement in this area and believe these efforts should prove invaluable in reversing declining retention and readiness trends in all services. Mr. Speaker, CDR Torsch has been a leader in every sense of the word--a leader in TROA, the Military Coalition and the entire retired community. Her health care contributions have made an indelible mark on the lives of millions of retirees that will benefit them for years to come. I urge you to join me in wishing her continued success in her new endeavors and in her continued service to this nation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Oklahoma is absolutely correct. We have worked out the D.C. bill. It is done, and I give credit to the gentleman from Oklahoma, to the members of the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle, and in the Senate as well. In fact, I am not even going to mention the topic of any of these issues that have perennially been so divisive on the floor of the House. We have a good bill, a good D.C. bill. We had, though, a good news-bad news conversation to relate to the democratically elected delegate-representative from the District of Columbia today. The good news was that, finally, after the fiscal year had begun, the District of Columbia bill, the conference agreement, was unanimously agreed to; it was going to go to the President. Great news. We have been waiting for this for over a year. The bad news is that the D.C. bill is being attached to the Commerce, Justice, State bill, which is going to be vetoed. That is very unfortunate. We feel that D.C. deserves to go on its own accord. If it was to go to the White House today, it would be signed tonight; done deal; no controversy. But, instead, we are dumping a bill on it whose veto message we are already in possession of. The President of the United States has told us he is going to veto this bill. Mr. Speaker, the President has told us that there are a number of reasons why he is going to veto the Commerce, Justice, State bill. He is going to veto it because it prevents the Justice Department from being able to pursue litigation against tobacco companies, tobacco companies whose product has resulted in the loss of billions of dollars to the Medicare and Medicaid program. Secondly, the President says that it fails to include hate crimes legislation. Thirdly, it does not address in a meaningful way privacy concerns with regard to Social Security numbers. Fourthly, it contains a range of antienvironmental, anticompetitive damaging riders. Lastly, perhaps, most importantly, I think most importantly, it fails to redress several injustices in our immigration system. Mr. Speaker, there is a Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act, which has been before us for some time. There is a compelling justification for this legislation. These are people who have been working hard, paying taxes, contributing to our community and, particularly, to our economy for over 15 years. They have a deep abiding faith in our system. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) will explain why a labyrinthine legislative process has left them in limbo for too many years. It is unfair to their families. It is unfair to the communities that they are part of it. It needs to be redressed. We need to take care of it, which should be part of this legislation. That is why we oppose it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), the distinguished chairperson of the Hispanic Caucus in the Congress, who will explain specifically why we so strongly object to not including the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act in the bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, the D.C. bill is a good bill. It should be going to the White House tonight to get it signed. I applaud the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) for the compromise that has brought us to this point on the D.C. bill. I regret that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) cannot be here to express the same sentiment. The problem is it has been attached with the Commerce-State-Justice bill, of which many provisions are terrific. It could be a very good bill. But as the President has said in his veto message, there are some things that could and should have been changed. One of them, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has said, would allow the Justice Department to pursue litigation to recover billions of dollars that have been lost to the Medicare-Medicaid program particularly through tobacco-related illness. Another is hate crimes legislation. Another is the anti-environmental rider that the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has spoken to. Another is a very troubling concern with regard to privacy protection of Social Security numbers. That language, I think, when it was revealed by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), shocked many Members that that kind of language could be in this bill. But what we have spoken about primarily is the fact that the Latino Immigrant Fairness Act is not included in this bill. This is the last appropriate vehicle for this legislation to be included. The problem is that there are hundreds of thousands of families who this country has discriminated against unfairly that need this legislation. I say discriminated against because all we had to do was to treat all Central and South American refugees in the same way we treated Cuban refugees and Nicaraguan refugees. It does not matter whether they are escaping from a right-wing dictatorship or a left-wing dictatorship. If they need refuge in this country, we ought to treat them all the same. But instead, the language in this bill would perpetuate the current patchwork of contradictory and discriminatory policies enacted by this Congress. In fact, we have enacted a mean-spirited law that vacated Federal lawsuits on behalf of those wrongfully denied legalization in the 1980s. What we are talking about are families who have been here for more than 15 years who have been working hard, who have been paying taxes, who have been contributing to their community. Very few are on any form of welfare. They, in fact, are contributing so much to our economy, doing the kind of labor that a whole lot of Americans would not want to do and certainly not the wages that they have been getting, that if they were deported, it would cripple our economy in many parts of this Nation. I know in my own district, if we deported these people that have been contributing so much to our economy, it would cripple many sectors of our industries. The fact is they are building our buildings. They are helping to repair our streets. Many are cleaning homes. They are doing anything they have to do to work hard to be able to provide for their families. They are Americans. And who are we to say? There is not a Native American here among the Congress. We are all immigrants. This is a Nation of immigrants. We are talking about people who have come to this country because they believe in the American dream. They have been working hard. They have been paying taxes. They have been contributing to our economy and our society. They are people of faith, faith in their God, faith in this country, and faith that we will not discriminate against them. So this is our last opportunity. That is why we made such a big deal about including this legislation. It should have been included. Because it was not, we have to urge a no vote on this bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished minority ranking member.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to make a telling point.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let us find out how much time each side has, and perhaps the Chair might share with me who has the right to close as well.