Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Is my recollection incorrect that that is not in the House bill either?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook), that while some of the points are valid with regard to the House bill and the Senate bill, the conclusion is not one we could agree with. Let me respond to some of the points that have been made by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) and by my colleague, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt). My colleague, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), suggested that in some way the Senate bill shortchanges youth programs, and yet the Senate bill adds $500,000 for a new community center for homeless runaway at-risk youth. The Senate bill adds another $250,000 to enhance reading skills of District public school students. There is a whole list of programs that the Senate bill has that I know that the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) would not object to, but these are good programs that are not in the House bill. The main thing that I have to take issue with is that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) have suggested that the House bill takes a more responsible approach to some of these difficult issues that we have been wrestling with, and I do not think that is the case. I would remind both the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and anyone who does not think that the Senate bill is a responsible bill that it passed the Senate unanimously, unanimously. Madam Speaker, with regard to this needle exchange program, the Senate bill that we are asking my colleagues to accept and that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) is willing to accept says we cannot use any Federal funds for needle exchange programs. We cannot use any local funds for needle exchange programs. We cannot use any public funds for needle exchange program. It is pretty tough language. But it is in the bill. And to suggest, as my friend, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), suggested that somehow the Senate is taking too liberal an approach here, I do not think that the Senate is some cabal of left-wing ideologues. I should not characterize the Senate.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I think I may get wound up a little more. Madam Speaker, let us yield ourselves at least 3 minutes for this.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), and the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) and my cosponsor of the resolution, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), and the other cosponsors as well. I also want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) for letting this come up on the floor today. H. Con. Res. 133 recognizes the severity of the disease of colon cancer, the preventable nature of the disease and the need for education in the areas of prevention and early detection. The consideration of this resolution comes in time for a very special event which will occur this Sunday, October 8, on the mall in Washington. I am speaking of the first-ever 5K WebMD Rock 'n Race to Fight Colon Cancer. Katie Couric, who suffered the loss of her husband to this disease, is the founder of this event. This walk will bring together people from across the country who want to show their support for victims, survivors, family members, and friends who have been touched by colon cancer. Colon cancer is the number two cause of cancer death for both men and women combined. However, it is also one of the most preventable of cancers. In fact, when detected early, colon cancer is 90 percent curable. In the United States, as the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) said, more than 130,000 new cases of colorectal cancer are expected to be diagnosed and about 56,300 people will die from the disease this year. I guess that was the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) that shared those statistics with us and those are absolutely accurate. Many people are not aware of the prevalence and seriousness of colorectal cancer in men and women because the issue has not been freely discussed. Colorectal cancer is highly preventable through primary prevention strategies, such as diet, nutrition and exercise. In fact, adopting a healthy diet at a young age can significantly reduce the risk of even developing colorectal cancer at any point in your life. Research has shown that a high-fiber, low-fat diet with minimal amounts of red meat and maximum amounts of fruits and vegetables can significantly reduce the risk of developing colorectal cancer. In addition to a healthy diet, regular screenings can save many of these lives. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Health Care Financing Administration, the National Cancer Institute, have initiated a Screen for Life campaign targeted at individuals age 50 and older to spread the message of the importance of colorectal cancer screening tests. We need to broaden the message of this Screen for Life campaign to reach all individuals and to save many of their lives. As of today, 41 bipartisan Members have cosponsored this resolution which seeks to raise awareness of colorectal cancer. Colon cancer is a preventable disease. Colon cancer is a treatable disease. We need to at least do our part in spreading this message by passing this resolution. I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to consider H. Con. Res. 133. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan resolution and to join their constituents who will be coming to Washington this weekend for the WebMD Rock 'n Race.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished ranking member from Michigan, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren). A number of other of our colleagues have worked very hard on this legislation. It is good legislation. It is essential legislation. It benefits a great many industries critical to the health of our economy. But foremost among those sectors benefited is the high technology industry. The reason for that is that in the next few years the demand for skilled technology workers will mushroom worldwide. In the United States alone we will need 1.4 million more computer programmers, computer scientists and engineers by the year 2003. Today, 2.5 million workers work directly in the high technology industry; and while American firms dominate information technology markets worldwide, there are some 350,000 unfilled high technology jobs in the United States alone. To keep pace with demand each year for the next 10 years, the United States will have to train and hire an additional 130,000 computer scientists, engineers, and systems analysts. And unlike many of those countries that are falling behind us, our strength is in our openness, openness to the flow of goods and services and capital and people. The warnings from the left and particularly from the right that more trade and immigration would throw native-born Americans out of work, destroy jobs and drive down wages have proven to be spectacularly wrong. I am looking for my friend from California, because our economic expansion has continued at the highest pace ever. That was the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), certainly not the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), who obviously understands the need. In the last decade trade and investment with and in the United States economy has reached record levels while the influx of legal immigrants has averaged close to a million per year. And yet contrary to all the isolationists' dire predictions, unemployment has fallen to a 30-year low, 22 million new jobs have been created, real wages have been rising all across the income scale, and the current economic expansion has just set a record as the longest in United States history. Until workforce training catches up to workforce demand, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that our employers have the ability to fill gaps in their workforce with qualified foreign national professionals. By allowing and encouraging the best and the brightest from around the globe to bring their knowledge and skills to the United States, and we are a Nation of immigrants, that is one of the reasons it is working so well, we can preserve our high-tech advantage over other countries while at the same time making sure that those same jobs do not move overseas. This is preventing those jobs from moving overseas. As we have heard, this legislation if enacted will ensure that Americans have the education skills and training to take these jobs if they choose to pursue the training opportunities that this bill will provide. The dedicated fees generated by this bill will ensure that current American workers can be retrained for high-tech, new economy jobs. That is why we need to support it. I thank the White House and the Democratic and Republican leadership. It is a fair and productive matter. Let us vote for it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Horn). He made it clear from the outset that he wanted bipartisan constructive legislation, that he wanted hearings, and he wanted to do what we could do given the information that we had available to us. I also want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson). He has worked, again, in a constructive manner, listening to everyone that wanted to have input into this legislation, has never behaved, to my knowledge, in this context in any partisan fashion. He wanted this to be a bipartisan bill. So I was very pleased to work with him. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the ranking member of the subcommittee. Again, all they wanted to do was work in a constructive bipartisan manner. Now, I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) whose leadership has been outstanding. In fact, I agree with the gentleman's emphasis on the need for privacy legislation and with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). I think that we ought to have privacy legislation right now, particularly with regard to the protection of medical records. No question. Let us do it. We will vote for it. I know that the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) will and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) will as well. So I would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), my very good friend, I wished that I had had the same rhetoric teachers as my colleague, but I did go to the Jesuits, and I remember some of this, and it is very effective and impressive. But let me say to the gentleman from Massachusetts just do it. If he wants privacy legislation, do it. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) suggested, the gentleman from Massachusetts is on the Committee on Commerce. The reality is that it is not going to get done. This is all we have. We have made it clear, every speaker has made it clear this does not preclude any other privacy legislation. It is meant to compliment it. We do not have to take 18 months. We can do it in 6 months. The problem is, while the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), my good friend, may have all the answers, I do not. I am not sure what to do. Given the fact that there are 7,000 privacy bills introduced in State legislatures, one out of every 5 legislative bills introduced around the country this year had to do with privacy, we have got dozens of bills pending before our committees on privacy, which one of them works? Which ones will create a consistency? I am not sure. I do not have those answers. I am not even sure how we protect the consumer choice that is very important to many people while ensuring that we protect people's basic privacy which is a fundamental American right and freedom. I do not have those answers. I am not sure this Congress has those answers. Perhaps some of us do; and if they do, just do it. Come up with the legislation, and we will vote for it. In the meantime, we want to get the experts together to bring out all the factors that need to be considered so that we can have the most thoughtful, the best considered legislation possible. This is critically important. It is critically important to our economy and to our society. It is a basic American freedom, individual privacy. But let us not mess it up. I know that privacy is off the charts on every poll we take. I know that all the voters want us to do something about privacy. But if we are going to do it, we ought to do it right. We ought to do it in a bipartisan way. We ought not politicize it. It ought to be good, public policy that is sustainable. That is what this legislation does. That is all it does. We have worked on this. We have listened to everyone. I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), my friend and the distinguished leader will recall that, in fact, when we had hearings, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) testified about medical records, about financial records. I am not sure I got an answer about the question how do we make consistent privacy regulations on medical records, on financial records, on the children's privacy protection act that was just passed. How do we bring all these together and have a consistent Federal policy? How do we get consistency among the States without preempting their right to protect their citizens? I do not know. Let us ask the experts, and that is what this commission does. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4049. I would like to thank my colleague Asa Hutchinson and Jim Turner, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for their leadership and bipartisan efforts in introducing this bill. This legislation has been criticized by some as a proposal to slow down other privacy legislation. On the other hand, the idea of a privacy commission has been criticized by at least some in the business community out of a concern that it may lead to the enactment of overbearing legislation. Unfortunately, this way of thinking and operating has become a familiar pattern with a familiar result. Congress winds up doing nothing. That is really what we are talking about today. Do we engage in the same old partisan gridlock and do nothing or do we get serious about moving forward on some of the most important issues in this nation and pass this legislation. I respect and appreciate much of the work that colleagues and friends like Ed Markey and John LaFalce have done on privacy issues. I agree with them that there are some privacy issues, like the protection of medical records, that Congress should immediately move to protect. That is why we purposely did not include any moratorium or preemption language that would prevent Congress or the states from enacting privacy legislation that may be needed before the work of this commission is done. But the reality is that there is not going to be any other privacy legislation passed this term. In the meantime, we can be doing something constructive. Let me repeat that: Nothing in this bill precludes Congress or the states from moving forward on privacy legislation. I do believe, however, that the work of the Privacy Commission will lead to better overall decisions about privacy, particularly as it relates to the Internet and electronic commerce. Privacy has become a major public policy issue. Last year, the state legislatures considered over 7,000 privacy bills. Approximately one out of every five bills introduced in the state legislatures was a privacy bill. The Congress currently has before it dozens of privacy bills. The federal regulatory agencies are busy on numerous privacy initiatives. And yet, it has been more than twenty years since the Privacy Protection Study Commission issued its landmark report in 1977. Since then, the personal computer and the Internet have transformed our economy. At the same time, they have raised and continue to raise new privacy issues that the 1977 study could not have envisioned. It is time to revisit the issues from the 1977 report as well as the broader new issues raised by the information economy. The Privacy Commission Act creates an opportunity to do just that. Everyone agrees that getting privacy policy right will go a long way towards fully developing the potential of the Internet and e-commerce. The extent to which this exciting new medium will continue its incredible expansion depends in large measure on balancing legitimate consumer privacy rights with basic marketplace economics. An open and supportive legal environment has helped encourage the rapid development of the Internet. Companies and consumers alike realize that Internet privacy is the one issue that must be done right. Americans are rightly concerned about their lack of privacy. We know and appreciate that the public worries about cookies; worries about the capture of information regarding browsing behavior; and worries about profiling. But, we don't know what the dimensions are of the real privacy threats posed by these activities and what the economic payoffs are of these activities. We certainly don't know very much yet about the impact of recently enacted privacy protection legislation, such as the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act or the privacy protections in Title V of Gramm-Leach-Bliley. There is a lack of consensus about whether the U.S. should move toward the establishment of some type of national privacy regulatory agency or whether the existing combination of courts, consumer protection authorities, Attorney Generals and various federal agencies provide a more than adequate privacy regulatory presence. There is also the troubling question of preemption. In an electronic environment where information moves across local, state, and national borders in nanoseconds, does it really make any sense to allow the location of data, sometimes the momentary location of data, to dictate the rules that apply? The stakes are high. As a nation, we must find a way to protect information privacy and to give our citizens confidence that they can engage in e-commerce and provide access to their personal information, knowing that the information will be used appropriately and in ways that are consistent with their understanding of the transaction. At the same time, we must preserve the ability of the business community to use personal information effectively to promote consumer convenience and to drive down the cost and improve the quality of goods and services; and to personalize the marketplace--in a very real sense, revolutionize the marketplace--to spur growth and to give consumers information about the goods and services which consumers wish to receive. The Privacy Commission created by H.R. 4049 will not answer every question to everyone's satisfaction. But, there is every reason to believe that this is exactly the right time for a Privacy Commission to look at these questions, as well as the profound changes in the underlying technology and the underlying business models that have ignited the current privacy debate. This will allow us to get to our destination with fewer mistakes and in a way that encourages the effective use of personal information while protecting privacy. The Privacy Commission Act is supported by The Information Technology Industry Council, The Center for Democracy and Technology, The American Electronics Association, The Information Technology Association of America, and The Association for Competitive Technology. I would like to thank Asa for his leadership on this issue and I urge my colleagues to support the serious study of these important issues and to vote for this important legislation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the very distinguished gentleman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague if he is aware, I was the author of the opt-in requirement on licensing and registration of automobile vehicles, and it is working. But it was done in a bipartisan way if the gentleman will recall and we had adequate information. I would suggest to my colleague that if he has legislation that can pass that the authors of this bill would be more than happy to sign on to that legislation and support it. We just want to get something done that will work, that is constructive, and that is sustainable.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5284, which would name the United States Customhouse in Norfolk, Virginia, after our retiring colleague and friend, Owen Pickett. I want to commend Mr. Scott for introducing this bill and working with both sides to bring it to the floor today. Let me just say at the outset how appropriate it is that this particular federal building should bear the name of Owen Pickett. As the other speakers have said, Owen was extremely instrumental in securing the needed funding for the renovation of the Customhouse. He worked hard, as he always does, to bring together the General Services Administration (GSA), the Customs Service and other interested parties to work out the details of this project. It is in large part because of his hard work that the renovation of this historic building was completed earlier this year. Owen's work on the project constitutes a victory for historic preservation in Virginia. Beyond this particular project, I want to say what an honor it has been to serve with Owen Pickett during the past ten years. Mr. Pickett is a true gentleman. Throughout his service, Owen has worked tirelessly and effectively not only for people not only 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 is also 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 somehow fitting. It certainly wasn't that way when he came to the House in 1987. Mr. Speaker, all of us in the House will certainly miss the service and dedication of Owen Pickett. I commend the leadership for bringing this bill to the floor in such an expeditious manner.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank my friend and very distinguished colleague from Puerto Rico for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the distinguished chairman. This was necessitated when a deranged terrorist killed two CIA officers in 1993. The reason that we are making this land exchange is for security purposes. It does not do much for the parkway, but it certainly has no damaging effect; and it is the right thing to do, so the Park Service is making an equal swap of land. They are picking up almost 3 acres of land on the far compound, and they are giving up this land to enhance security for CIA employees. It is the right thing to do. There is no controversy. I very much appreciate my colleagues letting it go through. I trust that we can find more ways that we can reach win-win bipartisan solutions on these things.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and Representative Thomas Davis, I rise today to recognize the Wesley Housing Development Corporation on 25 years of service. We are all aware of the national problem that is especially acute in Washington and other metropolitan areas. The booming economy has severely tightened the rental market, putting low and moderate rental properties out of reach for scores of our citizens. True to its mission, Wesley Housing has pioneered affordable housing solutions that have stabilized and strengthened families, neighborhoods and entire communities throughout Northern Virginia. Additionally, through its efforts to empower these residents, it has formed partnerships with area institutions of higher learning to assist residents in acquiring the necessary skills and training central to competing in this new age of information and technology. Many of our colleagues here in Congress have espoused the notion of bridging the digital divide. Mr. Speaker, it is through community efforts as demonstrated by the Wesley Housing Development Corporation that we are able to achieve this reality. During 25 years of service, it has remained true to one general theme which has been vital to its success, everyone counts. Over these years, it has served over 7,000 residents including the elderly, physically disabled persons, those living with HIV and AIDS, and those representing a broad spectrum of ethnic backgrounds. Mr. Speaker, we take great pride in commending the Welsey Housing Development Corporation on a job well done during its 25 years of service. Thanks to the men and women of this Corporation who have answered the call of duty for our most neediest citizens, our outlook for tomorrow is much brighter.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, across the river about 10 years ago, when I was mayor, we set up a school-based health clinic. It was very controversial and difficult to do. But now that it has been set up, it has saved countless lives. It has helped teenagers to act more responsibly. Ultimately, the community concluded that while it would be wonderful if we could convince teenagers never to have sex, if we could eliminate unintended pregnancies, unwed pregnancies, the reality is that we have to deal with human nature. We have to improve the lives of people. We decided that as a community, which is the way that these issues should be decided, where people can accept the accountability for decisions that they make for the people they serve directly. I do not think we are particularly successful in trying to mandate morals. We have an opportunity now for professional people, school health nurses, generally, to be able to prescribe a way in which an abortion is not affected; whereas we can prevent pregnancy by providing pills that ensure that women can take control of their lives. Through our schools and other community institutions, we can help them become more responsible over their future, and we will not see as many children being aborted or being born into unwed situations where they suffer. We do not; they do. Let us not make them suffer; let us defeat this instruction. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that both sides be granted an additional minute.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I want to put into the Record the fact that the American Lung Association opposes the Bilbray amendment because it penalizes kids for the possession of tobacco products. Mr. Chairman, the American Lung Association opposes this because it is not an effective technique to reduce underage tobacco usage. The reality is that the compliance checks that are currently going on would be made illegal by this amendment. The Synar amendment on marketing tobacco to children could not be enforced because it would be illegal for supervised teens to attempt to purchase tobacco. This an attempt to put the blame on our children, the pawns of decades of sophisticated marketing by the tobacco industry, instead of manufacturers and retailers. It shifts the blame inappropriately. A study by the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene discovered that 480 minors were penalized for possessing tobacco and no merchants were penalized. On July 16 and 21 of 1998, the American Lung Association conducted an undercover sting operation to determine whether teens could purchase tobacco in the U.S. Capitol complex. Five out of nine attempts were successful, and in the House office buildings all attempts were successful in the House office buildings. This is clear proof that existing laws regarding selling to teens are not being enforced. They need to be enforced first. Let us not criminalize our kids. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we are adamantly opposed to this. On the face of it, it looks like it might be reasonable, but it is a thousand feet away from every place, every activity where children may be involved, parks, recreation, schools, video arcades. This is a small city. If we take a 1,000 feet around the perimeter of all of these activities, the only place left to conduct this program that has been so effective, has been the most effective way of combatting a scourge that is worse than in any other city in the country, particularly affecting women and children, and that is HIV infection. This is the program that works, but we cannot conduct this program under the Tiahrt amendment, except in the Potomac River, on the White House lawn, at Bolling Air Force Base or at the Old Soldier's Home, there may be a couple other places, but there are very few, probably the Washington Mall, but there are very, very few places under this amendment that could ever conduct a program. Effectively what it does is to say, you cannot conduct this program. It is an allegedly clever way to kill a program that works. We are adamantly opposed to it. If this stays in, I will tell my colleagues this bill will be vetoed, because we have a program that works for people who desperately need it to work. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we have the opportunity to do the right thing. Vote no on this bill. Then we can get a bill that is acceptable to the Senate, to the White House, and, most importantly, to the citizens of the District of Columbia. We owe them that. The citizens have elected a good mayor, they have got a good D.C. City Council, they are making progress, economic and social progress. They are not asking for much. They are asking that their kids have a chance to go to college and make it affordable. They are asking that we put up one-third of the cost of a Metro station that is desperately needed on the New York Avenue corridor. They are asking to clean up some of their brownfield sites. We have the money to do it. Let us do it. Do the right thing; vote no on the bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I believe that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and I will each take 5 minutes to summarize the vote on the underlying bill before us. Mr. Chairman, we are going to urge those who believe in home rule for the District and recognize the kind of economic and social progress that has been achieved in the District of Columbia to vote no on this appropriations bill. We had an opportunity to have a bill that would have sailed through conference with the Senate and would have been signed by the President. It would have been taken care of. We have got 11 appropriations bills, most of which, if not all of which, are likely to get vetoed now. Only defense and military construction have been signed. This is one that should be signed. The District of Columbia needs its money, it needs it now, and all we would do if we had the opportunity is to ask, let us pass the Senate bill. Now, what is the difference? In the Senate bill we restore $17 million to New York Avenue Metro station. They cannot begin that Metro station, which is a desperately needed economic development initiative, unless they have the full $25 million. All the money has to be identified. The private sector says they will put up $25 million, the city will put up $25 million, they budgeted for it, all we have to put up is our own $25 million and then we can go forward. This does not do that. This shortchanges economic development. We need $3 million for those seniors in high school in D.C. to make the College Tuition Access Program available to everyone in a fair manner. The Mayor has asked for this money. $3 million should be included. We need $3 million for Poplar Point remediation, a brownfield site. There is $10 million in the budget, the city needs $10 million, we only ask for $3 million. Those are the kinds of things we ask for, plus the Tiahrt amendment, which negates a program which is working and is desperately needed in the city. We are not asking for much. We ought to get it, get the bill signed. Why we have to go through all these motions that are so destructive and such a waste of time is beyond me. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations, to put this bill in context. Could I ask how much time is remaining?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, that was very gracious of you to recognize the personnel that make this bill work. I should have done it. I appreciate the fact that you did it on both sides of the aisle. I do not know what Migo Miconi is going to do without Mary Porter, but she is going to be able to spend more time in my congressional district, I trust. She has been wonderful, invaluable, and, more importantly than what Migo is going to do without her, I do not know what the Congress is going to do without her and what the citizens of the District of Columbia are going to do without her. She is a great public servant and we thank her for the great job she has done and wish her many years of health and happiness in her retirement. I appreciate the fact that the gentleman recognized her.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the very distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Speaker, about 9 years ago, a constituent alerted me to the fact that he was paying about $1,200 more in taxes for having gotten married than he and his spouse had been paying as singles. He understood the reason for it that, when two people get married, they oftentimes have only one mortgage or rent to pay and they can economize in other ways and when they have children they get a deduction for each child and that there is some rationality to the Tax Code. But it did not seem quite fair. We introduced a bill and it did not get too far. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) had another bill that he got through the Ways and Means Committee. Our bills cost only about $9 billion a year to fix the whole problem. What this bill does though, under the guise of fixing the problem, is to put us further in debt to the tune of about $200 billion more over 10 years than is needed to fix the problem. Most of this bill just gives deep tax cuts that are not targeted and do not produce the desired effect. The reality is that almost as many people get a marriage bonus as get a marriage penalty. Why do we need to give any further incentives to get married? This is not the way that we should be using scarce resources. What we ought to be doing is paying down the debt. We, the baby boom generation, got the benefit of the debt. We should not be passing our bill on to our kids. We should put first things first, pay off our debts and put our money aside to pay for our retirement, so our kids don't have to. Let us fix the marriage penalty but do it in a responsible manner. Let us not squander the surplus. Let us provide for the future.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Edwin Bearss, a constituent of Virginia's Eighth District, who has recently retired after an impressive forty year career with the National Park Service and distinguished service in our nation's military. Since the birth of our nation, Virginia has been a cornerstone in American history, especially during the Civil War. The majority of the Civil War's significant engagements occurred on battlefields in Virginia. Ed Bearss illuminated the valuable, living history found on the Civil War battlefields of Virginia and elsewhere in our country. Those who have been privileged to hear Mr. Bearss recount the vivid history of our nation's Civil War consider him a national treasure. Ed Bearss began his service to our country during World War II as a Marine fighting in the Pacific. After recovering from wounds he suffered during battle in New Guinea, he took advantage of the G.I. Bill and received a degree from Georgetown University, as well as a masters degree in history from Indiana University. In 1955, Mr. Bearss joined the National Park Service and began to share his knowledge and passion for Civil War history. As a historian at Vicksburg, Mr. Bearss' research led to the discovery of the lost ironclad Cairo and two forgotten Civil War forts. His desire for others to live history by touring battlefields inspired him to preserve the Manassas battlefields from the threat of shopping malls and two different amusement parks. Mr. Bearss set a new standard in historical research with his diligence and attention to detail. He has shared his research by writing ten books and over a hundred articles. His excellence as the chief historian of our nation's federal parks earned him the Department of the Interior's highest recognition, the Distinguished Service Award. To many, Ed Bearss' grandest accomplishment was his ability to bring a Civil War battlefield to life. He would dredge facts and stories from his immense store of knowledge and transport listeners back in time to when the actual battles took place. The energy with which Mr. Bearss gave his tours excited others to develop a passion for history. Mr. Bearss' work has helped many people realize the importance of preserving our nation's battlefields and the gravity of the battles fought at those sites. Fortunately for us and future generations, Mr. Bearss' historical gifts have been preserved by filmmaker Ken Burns, who included a number of Mr. Bearss' battlefield narrations in the award-winning PBS series, ``The Civil War.'' Mr. Speaker and my fellow colleagues, I invite you to join me in honoring a man who has devoted his life to serving his country. Mr. Edwin Bears should be praised for the passion he brought to the history of our country and the ways he shared that passion. His legacy as an historian and his valuable contribution to the preservation of Civil War history are a tremendous gift to our nation that will last through time. Thank you, Ed Bearss, for sharing your talents with us for so many years. We wish you much happiness in your retirement and hope you will continue to enrich us with your vast knowledge and appreciation of our nation's history.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the very distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) for bringing forth this resolution to pay tribute to our friend and colleague, Herb Bateman. Mr. Speaker, Herb was a 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 that one needed to speak with him about. Herb embodied the spirit of civility and bipartisanship that we strive for but too seldom achieve. These personal qualities help to explain why Herb Bateman was so well liked on both sides of the aisle. Beyond his simple decency, Herb was a very effective Member of Congress. He was particularly a champion for the Navy, for its shipbuilding program, for the men and women who serve in all of our Armed Forces. As a ranking member of the old 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 throughout our State, both as a Member of Congress and as a member of the Virginia State Senate. I happened to host the congressional luncheon we had for the congressional delegation last week, last Thursday. Herb was the first one there. Every Member that came in, he greeted them warmly; he was fully cognizant of all of the issues that each of us was concerned about in our own districts. He was just a warm and terrific guy. He will be sorely missed, and we extend our condolences to Herb's wife, Laura, their children, and their many friends.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I understand that in my remarks yesterday, some of those remarks were inadvertently left out of the Journal. I ask unanimous consent to insert those remarks in their entirety.