Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), the sponsor of the three provisions of the Latino and Immigrant Fairness proposal.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our very distinguished leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), a good friend, colleague, and the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, in the President's veto message, he said, regrettably, this bill does not include needed protections against the inappropriate sale and display of individual citizen's Social Security numbers. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) to explain the President's objection in this regard to this bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Resources, to discuss the anti-environmental riders in the bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the indefatigable, irrefutable and indomitalbe Democratic leader of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the very distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, as the senior Member of this body said earlier, the United States and we, as Members of Congress, must not abandon our role as an honest broker and take a step that this resolution would do that undermines negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. We must heed the advice of the executive branch that has urged opposition to this resolution, both the National Security Council and the Department of State. Because although our words may seem removed from the violence that has engulfed the region, they do matter, and people listen. Instead of passing resolutions that condemn one side and further inflame passions, we should urge both parties to return to the negotiating table and to help them find their way back on a path toward peace. This resolution does not do that. We should offer words of consolation for all the loss of life and injuries. We should call for acts of violence to be halted on all sides in the conflict and call upon all parties to find ways back to the negotiating table no matter how difficult that task may be. We should not be engaging in taking sides and thereby further inflaming the rage and the despair. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleagues of the United Nations Security Council resolution that was adopted on October 7, dealing with the violence in the Middle East. The United States did not veto that. It chose to abstain because it felt that preserving the greater U.S. interests of remaining neutral in the conflict would, in fact, bring us further toward the peace that we all desire. We also need to keep a number of things in mind. There have been over 130 deaths in this region of the world, almost all of them Palestinians, more than a quarter of them under the age of 18, and almost all of them in an area that was supposed to be under the control of the Palestinian Authority. The reason for this conflict, Mr. Speaker, is because the Oslo Accords were not implemented. The Israeli Army still controls over 60 percent of the West Bank, a considerable amount of the Gaza Strip. It was clear that, unless we fully implemented the Oslo Accords, there was going to be conflict. In fact, we ought to recognize as well, if we were to do an evenhanded resolution, that the deliberately provocative act of Ariel Sharon in going to al-Haram al-Sahrif, or otherwise known as the Temple Mount, was a deliberate, conscious act. He was warned against doing that, yet, he took an entourage of more than 1,000 soldiers. The Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, criticized that visit as extremely provocative. But to many Palestinians, that visit was a show of military might, a blatant reminder of military solutions sought in the past. It was a humiliating message of disrespect to Palestinians and the Arab world. That is not how we bring about peace in the world and particularly in the Middle East. We as Americans, the rest of the international community, the Israelis, and the Palestinians should know that there is no military solution to these terribly difficult issues that have made the Middle East a region of tension and violence for far too long. In fact, the presence of Israeli tanks and helicopter gunships in Palestinian territories has only reinforced the despair among Palestinians that they will never be able to live free and independently. That is the source of the violence. That must be addressed. The Oslo Accords should have been implemented. In fact, since the Oslo Accords 7 years ago, the roads that have been built that have not been opened to Palestinians has further constrained their lives. Parameters are set upon their lives, around their lives that show that there is no hope for the future. It is out of that desperation that we see people sacrificing their lives, that we see people exhibiting real hatred for the situation that they have been put under. We have a responsibility to address that hatred, to try to find a common goal for the Middle East, one of peace and reconciliation, economic independence. We could only do that if we try to serve, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) said, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) has said, if we try to serve as an honest broker, representing the views of both sides in this conflict. This resolution accomplishes nothing except to make Members of the Congress look good. That is not our objective. What we should be trying to do is creating a better life for all people around the world in a fair and honest manner so that we can have a sustainable and just peace.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the parents, students and administrators at Arlington Traditional School. I will be pleased to welcome the students and teachers of this extraordinary school to the Capitol on Thursday, October 19, 2000. For the last 15 years this school has sponsored an extraordinary summer reading and civics program for its students. The Reading Challenge was started by its first principal, Dr. Frank Miller, who once spent the day on the roof of the school as a reward to the students for meeting their reading challenge. Since then, the challenge has grown under the leadership of its present principal, Ms. Holly Hawthorne. Mr. Speaker, the summer challenge program is based around themes including: ``Reading Around the Library,'' to learn more about the different kinds of books in the library; ``Read For the Gold,'' based on the Summer Olympics; ``Reading Around the World in Eight Days,'' to learn about world geography; ``Blast Off to Learning,'' that included a tour of the planets; ``Reading Is Monumental,'' to learn about important places in Washington, DC and Virginia; and ``From Sea to Shining Sea,'' to learn about the fifty states. The reward for the students' reading accomplishments has evolved into a celebration of reading known as Reading Carnival Day. Activities have included special events in each classroom, school wide parades, and special guest speakers. Over the years, the entire school has visited the public library and the Education Center where special guests read their favorite books to the students. In addition, a school-wide field trip was taken to the Air and Space Museum and to Mount Vernon for Colonial Days. These experiences undoubtedly enhance the interactive learning process for students beyond compare. Mr. Speaker, I take great pride in commending the Arlington Traditional School for its many accomplishments over the past 15 years. It is through their efforts that the prospect for the future is much brighter.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member very much for yielding me the time. I think he knows how fond I am of him personally and how much I respect his intellect and his heart. But I rise today in support of H.R. 2415 and the much needed bankruptcy reform measures contained in this legislation. The American people find it unacceptable and inherently unfair that those who do pay their bills have to foot the bill for those who in many instances have the ability to pay but choose not to. It has been conservatively estimated that personal bankruptcies cost every American family $400 per household per year and it takes 15 responsible borrowers to cover the cost of one bankruptcy of convenience. The system will continue to be unjust if debtors persist in using it as a tool of first resort rather than a tool of last resort when all other financial options have been exhausted. Clearly, this Nation's bankruptcy system is broken when it enables individuals to avoid paying their debts despite their ability to do so. What this Congress must do is to undertake genuine needs-based bankruptcy reform to require those who have the ability to repay a portion of their debts to enter a Chapter 13 repayment plan while also preserving the historic fresh start in Chapter 7 for those people who have truly fallen on hard economic times. The goal of our bankruptcy system should be to protect those who need protecting, to provide those who experience genuine and serious financial hardship the opportunity to wipe the slate clean. What we must do is return our system back to its original fair and compassionate mission through a simple legislative fix. Bankruptcy reform is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. It is a consumer issue. According to a recent National Consumer League survey, 76 percent of Americans believe that individuals should not be allowed to erase all of their debts in bankruptcy if they are able to repay a portion of what they owe. This survey merely reflects the American public's belief that individuals should be responsible for their own action. This bill would help to remedy the glaring problems of today's bankruptcy system by creating a needs-based system, subject to judicial oversight, which would similarly continue to protect the rights of those citizens who need a fresh start, while at the same time requiring those who do not to meet their personal responsibilities. H.R. 2415 represents a true compromise product between the House and Senate-passed bankruptcy reform bills. Both Chambers passed bankruptcy reform by strong bipartisan margins. The House passed their version last June by a vote of 314-108 with the support of 96 Democrats. The Senate passed theirs by 83-14. This bill contains a number of pro-consumer items, including a host of new disclosure requirements for credit card companies. Specifically, it requires credit card statements to disclose late payment fees. It also mandates that statements must include a toll free number for consumers to receive estimates on how long it would take to repay their existing balancing by making only the minimum monthly payments. The legislation also requires improved disclosures on introductory rates and prohibits creditors from closing an account solely if the customer does not incur finance charges. We need to pass this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it. General Leave

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 523, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague from Maryland in support of H.R. 208, the modernization of the Federal Employee Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). I share Mrs. Morella's view that federal employees should be allowed to participate in the TSP immediately upon being hired. As Members of Congress, it is the least we can do to reward the hard work of our federal employees who, in recent years, have assumed increasing responsibilities, sacrificed higher private sector wages, and generally tried to make the federal government operate more efficiently with, in many cases, tighter budgets. This bill will help to ensure that the Federal government is able to keep pace with the private sector in attracting the best and brightest personnel. I have seen this trend first-hand in my district, where many talented individuals leave federal service because their government compensation and benefits just don't compete with offers in the private sector. I firmly believe that this bill seeks to level the playing field by enabling the federal government to hire and retain a highly skilled workforce that will secure the American public's confidence in our government and the services our federal workforce provides. By lifting the waiting period restrictions on TSP participation, this is just one more step to make federal employment more attractive to individuals, and more competitive with the private sector.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize two of my esteemed colleagues from the Commonwealth of Virginia who are retiring from the House this year, and to honor Congressman Herb Bateman, who we were not able to recognize before his passing last month. Virginia has benefited enormously by their lifetime of public service. As a delegation, we are losing some of the finest Members of this Congress. I know I am accompanied by many other friends and colleagues who share a deep respect and gratitude for their years of friendship and service. Tom Bliley was first elected to this body in 1980, after a successful career as a businessman and serving on the city council and later as mayor of Richmond. Throughout his service in Congress, Tom Bliley has been a strong advocate of fiscal responsibility, the free market and consumer choice. As chairman of the House Commerce Committee for the past three terms, he has steered some of the most significant legislation through Congress in recent years. Chairman Bliley has also served as the dean of the Virginia delegation and, true to this role, he has been a leader to all of our Members. We have all enjoyed his friendship and great sense of humor. I would like to share one small example of his leadership. Just the other day, I went to Chairman Bliley to seek his committee's support for a bill (H. Con. Res. 133) that I sponsored to promote colorectal cancer screening and prevention. The Chairman quickly offered his assistance and steered the bill to the House floor for consideration. It is this kind of initiative and leadership that has earned him great respect among his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. It has also been an honor for me to serve with Owen Pickett during the past 10 years. Mr. Pickett is a true gentleman. Throughout his service, Owen has worked tirelessly and effectively not only for people in southern Virginia, but for our entire nation. He has championed the interests of our nation's military, and the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States. He has been a particularly strong advocate for the Navy and for our commercial maritime interests. Owen has also been uncompromising in his insistence that government be fiscally disciplined, a trait which he probably acquired during his long service in the Virginia House of Delegates. The fact that he is retiring at a time of record surpluses is something fitting. It certainly wasn't that way when he came to the House in 1987. Madam Speaker, this special order would not be complete without also recognizing the lifetime of service by our colleague, Herb Bateman. He was the quintessential Virginia gentleman. He was unfailingly polite and gracious to the people around him. He always had a kind word for members and staff, and he was easy to approach on any issue. Herb embodied the spirit of civility and bipartisanship that we strive for, but achieve too infrequently here in the House. These personal qualities help to explain why Herb Bateman was so well liked on both sides of the aisle. Beyond his simple decency, Herb Bateman was a very effective member of Congress. He was a champion for the Navy, for its shipbuilding program, and for the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. As a ranking member of the former House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, Herb was a forceful advocate for a strong U.S. merchant fleet and its role in our national security and economic livelihood. Generations of Virginians will long appreciate his work to promote economic development in our State, both as a member of Congress and the Senate of Virginia. Madam Speaker, all of us in the House will certainly miss the service and dedication of these three great Virginia legislators. We wish Tom and Owen a bright and rewarding future and all the best to Herb's family.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), my friend and colleague and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations, very much for yielding to me for his leadership on this bill, and I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation for his exemplary leadership. This bill is balanced. It is fair. It is responsible. It maintains and in fact improves our Nation's entire transportation infrastructure. I urge that it be supported. It also makes our roadways safer by encouraging States to adopt stricter thresholds for drunk driving. It contains a matter of vital importance to the entire mid-Atlantic corridor and to interstate commerce. As Members may be aware, this metropolitan Washington region suffers from the second worst traffic congestion in the entire country. No place is this problem more critical than at the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. It was built 40 years ago. It is crumbling before our eyes. Ten lanes of traffic are having to converge into six lanes. We are told that, if we do not get this bridge rebuilt within 5 to 6 years, we may have to divert 20,000 trucks from being able to cross the bridge. Not only would that be a nightmare scenario for the region, but it would be a severe handicap to this Nation's economy. So the $600 million that is included in this bridge is critically important. I would remind any Members that have questions about this, this is a federally owned bridge. It is a Federal responsibility. It will be turned over to the States as soon as it is reconstructed, as soon as we have a new bridge built. The States will pick up the financing from here on this. But this was necessary, and it was necessary now. I am very appreciative, not only to all the Members of the subcommittee, its leadership, its staff, but also the Members of the regional delegation on the House and Senate side who worked together in a bipartisan constructive manner.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I am very grateful for the gentleman for making note of that, because I think that is exactly what we should be doing here. These are bills that were requested by the White House because they came from the District of Columbia City Council, the Mayor, the financial control board agreed to them. So this is a budget that already has been scrutinized. I do not know why we need to take more than 30 seconds. This is the District's bill. It makes sense. It is a responsible bill. We want to get our appropriations bills done. It is after October 1. We have a terrific chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, he wants to get our work done. He is upset. And it is past October 1. The fiscal year has begun. We have an opportunity to get a bill passed that the Senate agrees to, that the White House will sign. We are only talking about $34 million that was within the budget request. We are probably going to go $25 billion over our budget resolution. Here we are talking $34 million. We can get this bill out of the way. Let us get our job done. The chairman has worked so hard, we ought to let him get his job done. Let us not mess around with these tangential issues, these ideological issues. Let us let the citizens of the District of Columbia decide what is in their best interests, let us recede to the Senate, let us get this appropriations bills signed, get our work done. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just elaborate on a few of the comments that the gentlewoman who represents the District of Columbia made. First of all, we have an opportunity to get the District of Columbia appropriations bill passed. We have only got two out of 13 appropriation bills done now. Finally we would get a third, with 10 to go. The second point she made is we are only asking for $34 million more. Now, we just passed an energy and water appropriations bill that was $880 million over the budget request. I would not want to suggest that a lot of that is pork, but I would suggest to the people who are watching this that they may want to look at some of the composition of that bill. We passed a defense appropriations bill. It was $1.4 billion less for military readiness that the President requested, yet there is $9 billion more for weapons programs, primarily manufactured in majority Members' districts. We are going to go through a number of appropriation bills in the last few days of this term, and all of them are going to see major increases, increases that make this D.C. bill dwarf by comparison. I mean, when we are talking about the District of Columbia bill compared to other bills, these numbers would get lost in the rounding. We are asking for $34 million is all, and that just brings it up to the budget request. Let me make a third point that the gentlewoman did not discuss and, that is, with regard to the prerogatives that we assume for our own congressional district. We have been adding programs that benefit our district. That is part of our job. Whether they fit within the original budget resolution or not, we are going to do the best we can for our district. But in addition to that, we jealously guard our district from letting any other Members mess around with it because we know our district best. We know what our priorities are. Imagine, I would ask my colleagues, consider how you would feel if the rest of your colleagues were telling you what you ought to be doing for your congressional district, what you ought to be doing to your congressional district. We would never tolerate this kind of scrutinizing, this kind of bashing in some ways, all this kind of micromanaging. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is saying, weighing all the priorities, understanding my district better than any of you do, and we know that that is the truth, what she wants is for us to recede to the Senate, get this bill passed, we are already past the beginning of the fiscal year, let the District of Columbia get its appropriation bill and let it go about its business. That is all she is asking. I am asking my colleagues, do nothing more but nothing less than we would do for our own congressional districts. Put yourselves in the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia's shoes. If you were representing the District of Columbia, what would you expect your colleagues to do? What we would expect our colleagues to do is to recede to the Senate, to get the bill passed but most importantly to listen to us, to take our advice on our congressional district. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) to respond to the gentleman from Oklahoma's comments, and then we will summarize our motion.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the motion, as it was read, would instruct the conferees to accept the Senate version of the District of Columbia appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001. The reason is that the Senate bill is a superior bill. The Senate bill is a bill that was supported by virtually all of the Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, will be supported by virtually all of the Democrats and I think a great many Republicans in the House. It is a bill that is supported by the Mayor of the District of Columbia and by the D.C. City Council, the properly elected officials to govern the district. And it is the only bill that the President will sign. This bill provides $34 million more in Federal funds to enable the District to undertake important economic development, environmental restoration and educational opportunity activities. It fully funds the Federal commitment to build the New York Avenue metro station; and, in fact, it represents only a third of the cost, given the fact that if we provide this money; the private sector will provide another third; another third will come from local funds. The Senate bill also enables the Poplar Point remediation project to begin. It provides tuition assistance for D.C. students to be able to take advantage of the ability to attend college outside of the District of Columbia. Without these funds, that program cannot be fully implemented. And it will enable the D.C. courts to see their first pay increase in more than 5 years. The Senate bill also refrains from imposing new social policies on the District, policies that we would never try to impose on our own constituents in our own congressional districts, and policies that have been rejected by the citizens of the District of Columbia and that, in fact, are intended to negate actions, programs, and initiatives that are working within the District of Columbia and that we ought to support not only because they are working, but, most importantly, because they are the way that the citizens of the District of Columbia choose to spend their own money. In addition to eliminating the more controversial social riders that were added anew to this bill, it goes a long way in honoring and giving more respect to the District and its reform-minded elected officers by reducing by more than 30 the number of general provisions in the bill that are no longer necessary. That is why the Senate bill is a superior bill, why in the very last days of this session we ought to recede to the Senate and get this bill passed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Well, reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, those subsequent revisions we have not seen. Now, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, who is the proper representative of the citizens of the District of Columbia, feels that the highest priority is to get this bill funded, notwithstanding issues with regard to the securitization of tobacco revenue and things like that. She is looking to the priorities of the Mayor, the city council and its citizens, and feels that this motion is in the best interest of those citizens, which I find to be a compelling argument to accept the Senate version. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First off, the Mayor and the Public Benefits Corporation seem to be working out their problems. Although I know language would be beneficial, we have not seen this particular language to which the chairman refers.