Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4865, the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act. Although I do not support this bill, I fully support providing much needed tax relief to recipients of Social Security benefits. For this reason, I will be voting for the Democratic substitute proposal. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative to our national strength and prosperity that tough and prudent fiscal strategies be pursued. These strategies have brought this country the largest surpluses and longest economic expansion in history. Unfortunately, on the basis of inherently uncertain projections about the future surplus, members on the other side of the aisle have chosen to spend the entire surplus on one tax break at a time. Mr. Speaker, this bill is another in a long series of fiscally imprudent tax cuts passed in this session of Congress which drain our hard-earned budget surplus and put at risk any chance of extending the life of Social Security or Medicare. Specifically, this bill threatens to raise interest rates, slow investment and productivity growth, increase dependence on foreign capital, and compromise our flexibility to deal with potential future budgetary problems. Moreover, this Republican proposal provides relatively few benefits for the vast majority of our working families. H.R. 4865 will provide about as much relief to the top 1 percent of taxpayers as to the millions of working people who make up the bottom 80 percent of taxpayers. Although we are currently in an era of surpluses, we should not forget that Medicare's fiscal future is troubled. Part A will begin running cash deficits again by 2010, according to the most recent trustees report. Beyond 2010, its cash deficits will grow ever larger, totaling nearly $7 trillion by 2040. Despite these looming deficits, the Republican bill would weaken, rather than strengthen, Medicare financing by depriving the program of roughly $100 billion in dedicated revenues over the next ten years and $464 billion through 2024. Without this income, Medicare Part A will go into the red again on a cash basis 5 years earlier than under current law. This bill will only threaten the viability of the Medicare Program for future generations, but it will force an even greater squeeze on hospitals and other health care providers dependent upon Medicare payments. Mr. Speaker, this bill will cost more than $100 billion over 10 years. Instead of devoting these resources toward a Medicare prescription drug benefit that would benefit all seniors and eligible people with disabilities, this proposal would leave more than four out of five Social Security beneficiaries with no more than they have today. While a budget surplus exists, we must utilize the surplus wisely to balance targeted tax cuts with paying down our national debt. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic substitute and reject the underlying bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, perhaps some people take umbrage at the passion of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), but I would expect that any of us if facing the same level of frustration and unfairness would not react in the same passionate manner. She is defending, not only her constituents but a process, a democratic process, that she believes in that caused all of us to get into public service, and the fact is, she is right, Madam Chairman. The mayor of the District of Columbia said he is going to pocket veto this bill. We have to believe. I cannot believe any of us do not believe that he is going to do that. So if we believe he is going to do that, why are we doing this? He is going to insist that there be a religious exemption clause. People that have moral objections are going to be able to raise them. So why are we doing this, putting this offensive language in this bill? Just to show that we are more powerful than them, just to show them. She is right. This is wrong. Now, let me also say it is wrong for insurance companies to cover viagra for men and not cover contraception for women. Let us just tell it like it is. What could be more unfair? All this contraceptive equity provision says is that insurance companies ought to be fair and start respecting women, when contraception is the largest single expense, out-of-pocket expense, for women during most of their lives, and that is because of men's irresponsibility that, darn it, it ought to be covered. So it is the right legislation. They should have passed this legislation, and it is also true that most of these Catholic institutions are self-insured. It does not even apply to them. They are self-insured. Let me also say something, and I can only say this, I certainly would never say this if my own life were different, but having been educated in Catholic schools all my life, if I were a gay man, I would feel the same sense of frustration and disappointment that Councilman Jim Graham expressed on the D.C. council. That disappointment and the intolerance and, yes, the hypocrisy of the Catholic church as an institution towards homosexuality ought to be addressed. So I do not blame them for saying that. I know he wishes he had not said that, but these are debates that belonged in the D.C. council. These are debates and issues that should be settled, should be settled by the D.C. government. The Catholic institutions within the D.C. government have plenty of access. They are well respected, deservedly so. They contribute tremendous benefits to D.C. government and its society. They will be fully reflected in the legislation that becomes law, and that is the way it ought to be. We have no business getting involved in this issue, particularly when we have no legitimate role to play. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) is absolutely right. The mayor is going to take care of that situation. Let him take care of the situation. He will be held accountable. He should be held accountable. He is elected. He understands it. He has a solution for it, and that is the way it should be, and what we are doing on this floor is not what should be done by this Congress. Madam Chairman, I gather we are going to continue this debate tomorrow.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, perhaps some people take umbrage at the passion of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), but I would expect that any of us if facing the same level of frustration and unfairness would react in the same passionate manner. She is defending, not only her constituents but a process, a democratic process, that she believes in that caused all of us to get into public service, and the fact is, she is right, Madam Chairman. The mayor of the District of Columbia said he is going to pocket veto this bill. We have to believe the mayor, I cannot believe any of us do not believe that he is going to do that. So if we believe he is going to do that, why are we doing this? He is going to insist that there be a religious exemption clause. People that have moral objections are going to be able to raise them. So why are we doing this, putting this offensive language in this bill? Just to show that we are more powerful than them, just to show them. She is right. This is wrong. Now, let me also say it is wrong for insurance companies to cover viagra for men and not cover contraception for women. Let us just tell it like it is. What could be more unfair? All this contraceptive equity provision says is that insurance companies ought to be fair and start respecting women, when contraception is the largest single expense, out-of-pocket expense, for women during most of their lives. It ought to be covered. So it is the right legislation. They should have passed this legislation, and it is also true that most of these Catholic institutions are self-insured. It does not even apply to them. They are self-insured. Let me also say something else. I certainly would never say this if my own life were different, but having been educated in Catholic schools all my life, I understand the sense of frustration and disappointment that Councilman Jim Graham expressed on the D.C. council on this matter. He expressed disappointment with the Catholic church as an institution because of its position towards homosexuality. That is his right. So I do not blame him for that. I know he wishes he had not said that, but these are debates that belonged in the D.C. council. These are debates and issues that should be settled, should be settled by the D.C. government. The Catholic institutions within the D.C. government have plenty of access. They are well respected, deservedly so. They contribute tremendous benefits to D.C. government and its society. They will be fully reflected in the legislation that becomes law, and that is the way it ought to be. We have no business getting involved in this issue, particularly when we have no legitimate role to play. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) is absolutely right. The mayor is going to take care of that situation. Let him take care of the situation. He will be held accountable. He should be held accountable. He is elected. He understands it. He has a solution for it, and that is the way it should be, and what we are doing on this floor is not what should be done by this Congress. Madam Chairman, I gather we are going to continue this debate tomorrow.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the reason for doing this is we want to strike sections 128 and 129. The reason is that the District of Columbia is already on the leading edge of the charter school movement throughout the country. It is reforming its schools. In fact, it had an enrollment increase of over 100 percent in the last year. Mayor Williams has seen to it that the funding has increased by 300 percent to $77 million for charter schools. That is good. That is what we want. The Center for Washington Area Studies reported that D.C. charter schools funding is among the most generous in the entire Nation in terms of per-pupil expenditures. Unfortunately, these two provisions could potentially jeopardize both that funding and the positive impact which charter schools are having because it substantially reduces the authority of local elected officials to determine the best use of surplus school properties. It was done without consultation with the Mayor or the school board or local elected officials. So passage of these provisions is going to have a very serious effect potentially upon homeless shelters, alternative education programs, the Metropolitan Police Department, because these organizations, these services are using surplus school properties. These amendments say any charter school can go in and buy these surplus school properties at 25 percent less than market even if they are occupied. So potentially, one could displace the Commission on Mental Health which operates a clinic at the Addison School, the Center of Hope which leases Keene School, the Commission on Mental Health which operates a children's program at the Reno School, the homeless shelters at Madison School in Old Emery, the Police Department at Petworth School. I have got all kinds of examples here that could be displaced if any charter school wants to come in and buy these surplus properties. They can get it at 25 percent discount on all leases, sales and lease sales. That means that the District of Columbia could lose $48 million from the market value of this property. That is why the Mayor does not want this. This does not make sense. We would not want it if we were mayor. Why would one lose that kind of money? We want to cooperate with charter schools. We are strongly in favor of charter schools. D.C. is doing a good job on charter schools. But this could really impede its efforts. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon), whose amendment passed in full committee and whose amendment would be negated by this amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, put this language in. We have a desperate situation on the 14th Street Bridge that is going to be exacerbated by construction on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and construction on I-66. Right now, on many days we will see backups for miles both north and south on the GW Parkway. I am sure that many of the Members who do live in Virginia are acutely aware of this problem. We need to widen the 14th Street Bridge desperately. It should be taken care of by the Public Works Committee. Now, all this is is money for planning, design, and construction to widen the 14th Street Bridge. I can see that the Public Works Committee wants to retain all of its prerogatives and this is a turf thing, and that is understandable. What we were trying to do was to help out the District of Columbia so they did not have to take it from their own transportation money. No good deed generally goes unpunished, and I see this good deed is going to be punished. So I understand the motion of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri). There is little we can do at this point because, under the parliamentary rules, it is a point of order. At this point I would concede the point of order.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella). (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the final one minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, drug czar General McCaffrey has never opposed a prohibition on local jurisdiction's efforts to implement a needle exchange program. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the honorable gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to sum up here. Mr. Chairman, I do not object if the intent is simply to help the charter school movement. The mayor wants to do that. I think most people in D.C. want to have an alternative school system. The problem is this amendment could potentially take $48 million out of the public school system. It could displace a number of very important organizations; the Commission on Mental Health; the D.C. Police Department is using Petworth School. Homeless shelters. So I do not think it was fully thought out. The problem is that it was done without consultation with the mayor, D. C. Council, and the school board. That is why the amendment really should be struck. I understand the point of order, but I also know we are doing the right thing if we were to strike it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. That is exactly even, Mr. Chairman, and that is what we want. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the very distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be introducing the ``Locally Regulated Towing Act.'' This legislation will restore the ability of local governments to regulate tow truck operations. Congress took this authority away from state and local hands when it passed the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, (P.L. 103-305). This law was intended to replace multiple and sometimes conflicting state and local regulations on interstate carriers like Federal Express and UPS, with a single uniform, national regulation. Expanding services like Federal Express and UPS urged passage of the law to help lower costs and improve their delivery time. While the law achieved its objectives, it also opened a loophole that permitted tow trucks to qualify as an interstate carrier and thereby exempted them from state and local regulations. Unlike Federal Express, UPS, and other major interstate carriers which are regulated by the federal government, tow truck operators are not. Congress has never granted any federal agencies the power to regulate tow trucks. As a result, their operations are free of any direct oversight or public accountability. In response to growing complaints about tow truck operations, Congress did amend the law in December 1995 (P.L. 104-88) to permit state and local governments to regulate prices on non-consensual towing. This change in federal law restored state and local governments' ability to regulate towing performed without the permission of the vehicle's owner, as in the instance where owners of vacant, private lots arrange for a tow truck operator to remove cars parked there without their permission. I am familiar with a number of alleged ``sham operations'' where lot owners failed to properly post signs that prohibited parking. Local business and restaurant patrons and tourists unable to find street parking were enticed to use these vacant lots only to discover later their cars were towed away and the cost to recover them is $100 or more. Unfortunately, even this modest change in federal law has had limited success. Consumer complaints about tow truck operators still abound. In the last two years, Arlington County, a jurisdiction I represent, received more than 160 complaints ranging from rates charged, some as high as $120, to vehicle damage, to theft and rude behavior. People who have had their vehicles towed have told my office about having to go to impoundment lots late at night in dangerous neighborhoods to recover their cars. When they get there, they are told that only cash is accepted. Moreover, State and local ability to reassert control over tow truck operations have been thrown into even greater confusion following two conflicting Federal appeals court rulings. Ace Auto Body & Towing v. City of New York upheld the ability of states and local governments to regulate safety issues and prices of non-consensual towing, while R. Mayer of Atlanta, Inc. v. City of Atlanta denied local governments' similar authority. The only real and effective solution to this problem is to restore full state and local authority over all aspects of tow truck operations. The legislation I am introducing today will accomplish this objective. It is a common sense, pro consumer piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution and urge my colleagues to uphold the current Jackson-Vanik waiver. The Jackson-Vanik provision of the 1974 Trade Act was intended to encourage communist countries to relax their restrictive emigration policies. At the time, the Soviet Union was prohibiting Soviet Jewry from emigrating to the United States and Israel. The Jackson-Vanik waiver specifically granted the President the power to waive the restrictions on U.S. government credits or investment guarantees to communist countries if the waiver would help promote significant progress toward relaxing emigration controls. To avoid confusion among some of my colleagues, this waiver does not provide Vietnam with normal trade relations. Ironically, the economic incentives provided in the Jackson-Vanik are all one-sided favoring U.S. firms doing business in Vietnam. Mr. Chairman, Senator Scoop Jackson was a staunch anti-communist. Yet, he was willing to consider to incentives to encourage the Soviet Union to relax its emigration policy. In 1998, Charles Vanik, former Member and co-author of the Jackson- Vanik provision, sent me a letter expressing his strong opposition to the motion to disapprove trade credits for Vietnam and upholding the current waiver. Vietnam is experiencing a new era, driving by a population where 65 percent of its citizens were born after the war. Vietnam today welcomes U.S. trade and economic investment. The Vietnamese Government has made significant progress in meeting the emigration criteria in the Jackson-Vanik amendment. Through a policy of engagement and U.S. business investment, Vietnam has improved its emigration policies, cooperated on U.S. refugee programs, and worked with the United States on achieving the fullest possible accounting of POW/MIAs from the Vietnam War. Despite problems of corruption and government repression, there is reason to believe that our presence in Vietnam can improve the situation and encourage its government to become more open, respect human rights and follow the rule of law. U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam, Pete Peterson, our esteemed former colleague and former POW, has been one of our nation's strongest advocates for expanding trade with Vietnam. Renewing the Jackson-Vanik waiver will increase market access for U.S. goods and services in the 12th most populous country in the world. Disapproval of this waiver will only discourage U.S. businesses from operating in Vietnam, arm Soviet-style hardliners with the pretext to clamp down on what economic and social freedoms the Vietnamese people now experience, and eliminate what opportunity we have to influence Vietnam in the future. Mr. Speaker, last year we debated and soundly rejected a similar disapproval resolution. I urge my colleagues to do the same today and uphold the presidential waiver of the Jackson-Vanik requirements.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who is the one person actually elected by the D.C. residents to represent them.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the District of Columbia has 13 elected city council members; they have an elected mayor; and there are six members on the control board that are not elected but have responsibility. It is more members than we have on the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the Committee on Appropriations, and yet we gave the elected representatives of the District of Columbia 1 day of hearings and then turned around the very next day and marked up this bill. In the markup we decided to impose our fixes on some of the most serious problems that the District faces. For example, let me just give one example. In Anacostia, in the poorest part of this city and one of the poorest parts of this Nation, where there are homicides that occur on a nightly basis, where there is some of the worst poverty and desperation, rapes and all the things that occur when too many low- income people are forced into desperate circumstances, they depend on what is called D.C. General Hospital. The folks who use that hospital do not have health insurance, for the most part, and the care they need is very expensive care and it is very difficult to get doctors and health care professionals working there. So what we decided to do, because they have management problems and financial problems, is to say that D.C. General cannot use its line of credit any more. It is actually operated by what is called the Public Benefits Corporation. We are now told that means that this hospital goes under; it will become insolvent within a year, as well as the Southeast Community and a number of health care clinics in Southeast D.C. that deal with women and children throughout the neighborhoods. Now, an alternative might have been to consult with the mayor, the city council, the professional experts working on this problem. But we did not do that. We gave 1 day, then imposed our solutions. I do not think that is the way we should be doing things. Now, we are going to talk at greater length on that when we have a specific discrete amendment on that issue, but it is typical of a number of what are called general provisions in this bill that attempt to legislate and to override what D.C.'s legitimately elected officials are trying to do to solve their own problems. But in addition to that, we have a funding shortfall. The bill is $31 million short of what the administration and the District of Columbia government requested. It is $22 million below what Congress appropriated for the District of Columbia last year. Now, what excuse can we offer? We are in a time of great surplus. This is one of the cities that needs help the most. It is our capital city, and we made a commitment in the 1997 D.C. Revitalization Act to assume certain responsibilities; to make them Federal responsibilities. And now, in this bill, we are shortchanging the D.C. government, reneging on our commitment to the tune of $31 million. In a $1.7 trillion budget we cannot find $31 million to meet our own commitments? The fact is we can, but we choose not to. Now, with this lower allocation, what don't we fund? Well, we have two critically needed economic development initiatives in the District, and one is completion of a New York Avenue metro station. The private sector, the business community, said that they would put up $25 million, D.C.'s own taxpayers said they would put up $25 million, and the Federal Government was to put up $25 million as well. This bill does not do that, though. They met their share, we are not meeting our share. We are putting up $7 million in federal funds. We are going to use $18 million from an interest account that exists, but we find out now that the $18 million does not exist. It has already been used in the D.C. budget that has already been submitted; that has been approved by the District and will become law unless Congress disapprove it, which we will not do. So the $18 million does not exist. It is a shell game. It is double counted. So we are underfunding the New York Avenue metro station when two-thirds of it is not even being funded by the Federal Government. And then there is the Poplar Point brownfield remediation project, an excellent project. We agree with it. We give it all the rhetoric and none of the money that it needs. We will not have the funds to extend the foster care adoption incentives. There are kids languishing in the foster care. There are people that want to adopt them, good parents, and we underfund that. It even underfunds our own Financial Control Board that we set up to oversee the District's budget. So I do not think that this is a bill that we should be particularly proud of. But even more troubling, once again we are going to debate a series of social riders and address some new ones as well that violate the principle of democracy and home rule and restrict how the District may elect to use its own funds to address its own set of priorities. Earlier this year I asked the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) if we could not start with a clean appropriations bill this year, clear it of all of last year's general provisions that did not belong in an appropriations bill. The District of Columbia, the Mayor, and the President of the United States followed this recommendation in their budget. But we have not done so. We have got 68 superfluous general provisions; and in the vast majority of them we would never think of imposing these kind of punitive, paternalistic restrictions on any jurisdiction that we were elected to represent. Why do we do it to the District of Columbia? We do it to the District of Columbia because they cannot fight back, they are helpless, we have control over them, and they cannot vote us out of office. They cannot hold us responsible. They cannot do a darn thing to us. And so we beat up on them with these kinds of restrictive provisions and make ourselves look good back home. So we are going to offer a series of amendments here. I know we will probably lose them, and many of them are going to be found out of order because of this rule that protected Republican amendments and did not protect the Democratic initiatives. One of them deals with a controversial issue, medicinal use of marijuana. But what did we do? We decided that D.C. took a referendum, and we prevented them for the last year from even counting the results of that referendum. Well, that is not the responsible way to address a controversial issue. I will not get into that any further except to say this is not the way that we treat a community; it is not the way we would treat communities within our district. We have got a domestic partners law, and it says that D.C. cannot offer health insurance for domestic partners. But yet 3,000 employers across the country do it in any number of State and local jurisdictions. We never restrict any of those States and local jurisdictions. We did not tell employers they cannot do it, but we tell D.C. it cannot do it. There is a Contraceptive Coverage Act that has received a lot of publicity. It does seem that if a health insurance company is going to cover things like Viagra for men, it ought to cover contraception for women. That seems only fair and equitable. We put in legislation that said that they cannot do that unless they include the kind of religious exemption and ability to opt out on the grounds of moral objections, which makes sense, except that it is very broad and, again, we do not do it to anyone else. I think D.C. should be able to control these issues on their own. They are the ones that are being held responsible. The Mayor is going to pocket veto the contraceptive coverage and insist on the religious exemption clause. But let him do it. He is held accountable. Let them make that kind of decision. It is not up to us to be doing that. And the same legislation exists in 13 States. We have not tried to restrict them in any of those States that we have legitimate control over. Again, there are a number of specific situations that are objectionable in this bill. We have 68 general provisions that I mentioned. Many of them were punitive. They were one-time measures. Five of them are already Federal law. We have got another dozen roughly that are already included in the D.C. Code or in the D.C. budget. To include them is superfluous. Why do we leave this junk in an appropriations bill? We want to clear it out. That amendment should have been made in order. Mr. Chairman, we will now embark upon probably a spirited and controversial debate. But the bottom line is that we ought not be having this debate because every issue we will discuss has been discussed by the members of the District of Columbia City Council, has been considered by the Mayor, has been considered by the citizens of the District of Columbia. We live in a democracy. They should be able to exercise their democratic rights, and we should not be overruling them. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds on this issue, we are going to have a little time later on to discuss it, in terms of needle exchange. D.C. has the worst problem of AIDS infection of women and children, and the principal reason is the exchange of dirty needles. The exchange of clean needles works, but it is very restricted because of the Congress' intervention. This amendment would effectively preclude even private organizations from being able to address this problem. There are too many women and children dying of AIDS in D.C. We ought to do whatever is necessary to save their lives. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), the leader of the Smart Growth Initiative nationwide.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to respond to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook). With regard to the use of the New York Avenue Metro money, the reality is that that money was included in the D.C. budget, that D.C. budget was received by the Congress before the bill was marked up. There is no way that the D.C. government could have known, and so that money was already spent before we spent it again. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), a most respected and effective legislator.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we debated the D.C. bill six times on the floor, and it was vetoed twice last year. The principal issue was needle exchanges. We are going to have the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and for many years the chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Los Angeles, California (Mr. Dixon), explain how important this needle exchange program is and why the amendment that is going to be offered will not work. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Los Angeles, California (Mr. Dixon).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) explained, the amendment that we will be considering precludes the ability of any needle exchange program to effectively operate. Now, why is that important? It is important because we have hundreds, thousands, of residents of the District of Columbia who are infected with the ignominious disease of AIDS, and in the District the population where the AIDS epidemic is growing fastest are women and children. Imagine what it must be like to realize that your baby is infected with AIDS. Now, you can blame the mother, you can blame whoever, you can blame society; but the reality is that there is horrible, unjust suffering going on, and the principal reason for that pain and suffering is because of the use of dirty needles. The only program we have found that actually works, and we have any number of studies that proves that it works, is when an organization offers clean needles. But you only get a clean needle if you give back a dirty needle, and you have to get into a program. It is access to drug treatment, and it is working. Mr. Chairman, we might like to turn our backs and pretend this stuff does not go on and pretend there are easier ways to do it and ways that are less controversial, but there are not. They are not working as effectively, and that is why the administration stood up and kept vetoing this bill, because we have to care about people who are suffering and dying needlessly, if there is a way that we can stop it. This program can stop it, and that is why we ought to let it function, but not with any Federal funds, not with any public money, all with private donations. That is the point, that is how the program is being operated. But it ought to be allowed to operate. That is only fair. And the D.C. Government ought to be allowed to decide how it is going to cope with its problem, and not let us gain political advantage by superseding their judgment and preventing them from being able to address a critically important, desperate need within the District of Columbia. That is why this issue is so important. There are funding issues. Maybe we can take care of the funding issues in conference. We are going to try to do that. It is silly, when we have a $2.2 trillion surplus, a $1.7 trillion budget, we cannot find $31 million to make the District whole on a contractual obligation that we agreed to assume. So I trust we will be able to find that money. The District is getting on its feet. It has got a great Mayor, it has got a good city council. It is getting a lot of good people in running its government. If we believe in democracy, if we believe that the people have the power to regulate, to run their own affairs, that they will elect the people that will provide the kind of quality of life and security in the future for their children that they decide they want, that is what this is all about. Let us extricate ourselves from these matters where we ought not be involved. Let us do right for the District of Columbia. Until we fix this bill, I do not think we can support it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond, but not in a critical manner. Mr. Chairman, what we are withdrawing here is a study that was proposed that was related to the idea of a D.C. commuter tax. There had been a provision that was included in the subcommittee bill by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) that said that if residents of suburban Maryland or Virginia earned money in the District of Columbia they do not have to pay state income taxes on that money to Virginia or Maryland or basically any other State where they might reside. So it meant every Member of Congress who earns their money here would not have to pay any state income taxes on their income, until the District was permitted to tax income they might earn in the District. What we could have done is to suggest then that if that is the case then any resident of the District of Columbia that earns money in another State would not pay taxes in D.C., and D.C. would have wound up worse because the reverse flow of people finding jobs in the suburbs where the economic growth is happening is even greater than economic development in D.C. So there were problems with that. It was withdrawn. There was going to be a further study. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), upon consideration and discussion with the chair of the authorizing committee, has decided not to do that study. I personally would have preferred that we do a study that was broad based, looking at D.C.'s long-term revenue needs. I think that needs to be done. I think it could probably be done for $100,000. So I was hoping we would do that, but the study ought to be done by organizations that are located within the District of Columbia, private, nonprofit organizations, probably nonpartisan. We could get maybe the Brookings Institution and the Hudson Institute to collaborate. In doing so, they could look at ways that we can raise sufficient revenues to ensure that D.C. remains the economic core of the metropolitan Washington region but also sustain the economic viability of the suburbs as well. That is a long-term, mutually shared objective. I know that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) is in agreement with that objective. I would hope that we could find the money to put in this bill to do that kind of a study, but I have no objection to the manager's amendment and the decision of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) at this point to withdraw funding for this study. No one on this side is going to object to the manager's amendment, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 12.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this rule should be rejected. Let me first say to the chairman of the subcommittee, I appreciate his feelings that are inspired by the Federal monuments, whether it be the F.D.R. Memorial, the Vietnam Memorial, the Washington Monument, or the Lincoln Memorial. Of course, that is all on Federal land, it is owned by the Federal Government, it is run by the Interior Department through the National Park Service. That is not at issue here. What we are talking about here is the people who live within the District of Columbia who buy their own home, who are responsible for maintaining their own property, who elect their own representatives, and would like their representatives to be able to represent them, but would not like the Congress necessarily to be overruling their elected representatives, because they have no democratic right to hold us accountable, and that is the problem with this bill. The legitimately elected representatives of the District of Columbia are being overridden by Members of Congress who will never be held accountable for what they do to the District of Columbia. In terms of the budget, we made a deal back in 1997. Basically, because the District of Columbia has no State to support it, there are certain functions that we agreed we would pick up, and those functions are being shortchanged in this bill to the tune of $31 million. The bill is even $22 million less than last year's level. For those reasons, plus four specific reasons, I think this rule should be rejected. First of all, it protects four Republican amendments, which are all of the Republican amendments that were offered. Those Republican amendments, if they were treated the same way as the Democratic amendments, would be subject to a point of order. The Democratic amendments are all subject to a point of order. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) wanted to offer a ``Democracy'' amendment. I think she has some very compelling arguments, and I totally agree with those arguments; but they are going to be ruled out of order. We cannot bring them up, we cannot get a vote on them, because they are not protected. Why? Because they were Democratic amendments. Secondly, two of these Republican amendments that could have been ruled out of order are wholly contrary to what we would do to our own citizens in the jurisdictions that we are legitimately elected to represent. The Tiahrt needle exchanges amendment inserts new language that will kill the District's private needle exchange program that is run by a local nonprofit organization. It negates it. We are going to show that. It means that, despite what the House full Committee on Appropriations did, this program, run by a private organization, will not be able to operate. No Federal and no local public funds are involved in this program, and yet we are going to ensure that it cannot even operate. The Bilbray smoking amendment would impose Federal penalties and sanctions on children caught smoking. That is a well-intentioned thing to do, but no other jurisdiction in this country faces a similar Federal penalty for children caught smoking. We would never do that to any district we represent. It is clearly legislating on an appropriations bill. There is not one Member of this body that would impose this restriction on any citizen that elects them directly to represent them. Third, it protects the bill against a point of order that could be raised against a whole host of provisions in this bill that are legislating on an appropriations and have no business in an appropriations bill. We do not have those type of legislative restrictions on any other appropriations bills. They are punitive provisions put in to fix one-time situations and left in there. Lastly, these amendments are a clear violation of the spirit of District home rule, offering amendments that prohibit the District from implementing local initiatives where no Federal funds are involved. It is an abuse of congressional power. With the passage of the 1997 D.C. Revitalization Act that eliminated direct Federal payments to the district, the context and circumstances with which Congress might have justified past intervention is now gone. Federal taxpayer funds are not involved, we should not be involved, and that means we should vote against the rule.