Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is, again, to let the District of Columbia deal with its most severe problems, and one of its most severe problems has to do with the operation of D.C. General Hospital. Mr. Chairman, within the District of Columbia, there are over 80,000 people who have no health insurance, and D.C. General is their health care of last resort. When they go to the hospital, it is too often because they have a gunshot wound, because they have been physically attacked, because women have been raped, because they have serious drug problems, because they have problems that take acute attention and oftentimes very expensive care. Because these people generally do not have the money to pay for their health care, D.C. General has gone broke, as has Southeast Community Hospital, a number of the health clinics in the community. We are talking about places like Anacostia primarily, very low-income section of the city. Some people are in desperate poverty, even in today's world in the capital city. So a public benefit corporation was set up to see if they cannot manage these health care facilities and find a way to finance them. The PBC has not been successful in doing that. It is unfortunate. It needs to be corrected, but this bill tries to correct it without consultation with the mayor, the D.C. council and the outside health care consultants who have been looking at this problem for years. One of the ways it attempts to correct it is by cutting off its funding, terminating its line of credit. So what happens? The hospital, we are told, will become insolvent, will shut down within a year if this amendment is included in the bill and the bill is enacted. Okay. Fine. It is not being run well. It is losing money, but tell me, Mr. Chairman, what do we do with the thousands of people who go to D.C. General as their health care of last resort? No one else wants to handle them. No one else wants to handle these gunshot victims. No one else wants to handle these drug addicts. No one else wants to handle these people who have no money to pay for their health care. So what are we going to do with them? Are we just going to let them loose without health care? We are going to send them to other hospitals that do not take them, that do not want them, that are not going to treat them. So that is my problem with this solution. It is too easy. It was not done by D.C. because D.C. is held accountable by its voters for coming up with constructive alternatives. This is too easy an alternative: Cut it off, shut it down. That is not the way to handle a very difficult, complex problem. So what I want to do with this amendment is strike the language, leave it to D.C. to deal with. Do not come up with solutions that are going to make the situation worse. Do not have that pain and suffering of people who have no health care and desperately need it on our hands. We have no business getting involved in this issue, unless we have a constructive alternative. We do not, so we ought to strike the language. Point of Order

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offered this democracy amendment in the full Committee on Appropriations, and I appreciate the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) offering it today on the House floor, because she is the democratically elected representative of the District of Columbia, and she well knows that most of the provisions in this appropriations bill do not belong in any Federal appropriations bill. There are 72 provisions at last count, 17 new ones in the bill this time. We have a couple dozen provisions that are either already part of Federal law, other parts of Federal law that do not need to be here for any purpose, or are in the D.C. Code. D.C. is legally required to do these things. It is in their law. What are we doing keeping this stuff in the D.C. appropriations bill? It is sort of just making sure that that heel stays deep on D.C.'s throat so that they do not ever think that they can run their own affairs. Let us get rid of this junk. It is detritus. It does not belong on an appropriations bill. There are so many of these examples, punitive examples where we tell them what to do with their own vehicles, how much allowance for privately owned vehicles, how fuel-efficient automobiles have to be. It is all stuff that is contained in other places, or it ought not to be contained anyplace. Now, there are some controversial issues included in this amendment. There is a domestic partnership, tough issue. But the reality is that 3,000 employers across the country offer domestic partnership coverage. All kind of States and localities. I was not given those numbers this year, but we know the numbers; and it is a whole bunch of States and localities that do this. Why are we telling the District that it cannot? We do not turn around and tell anybody in the jurisdictions that we represent that they cannot do this; but we tell D.C. they cannot do it, because we are not accountable to them. They cannot do anything to fight back. Mr. Chairman, that is why this democracy amendment is in order, and that is why it is called a democracy amendment. We believe that people ought to be able to run their own affairs, that the power comes not from the State to the people, but from the people to the government. Then let the people of the District of Columbia be empowered to run their own government and get rid of this extraneous stuff. It does not belong here. Treat D.C. residents the way we treat our own constituents. That is all we are asking. That is the bottom line of this amendment. Do unto others as you would do unto yourself. Mr. Chairman, we would not do it to our constituents; we should not do it to D.C. residents.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the comments that my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), just expressed with regard to the equity included in this bill for Federal employees. Back when the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was implemented, we felt that one provision that would save money and that Federal employees would be willing to do, and in fact they did not have a lot to say about it, was to require them, basically, to contribute another half percent on their Federal retirement contribution. Now, as a result of this and several other measures that were designed to balance the Federal budget, Federal employees have paid in about $800 million towards the objective of balancing the budget. When this was done, the projected deficit was almost $100 billion. Today we have a surplus of over $200 billion, a $300 billion turnaround. So I agree with the Subcommittee on Appropriations and the full Committee on Appropriations that it is time to undo this provision, because this is Federal employees' money. When we are in a surplus environment, we want to act as fair and balanced as possible. That is why we lift this burden on Federal employees. As of next January 1, the retirement contributions required by Federal employees will be reduced by half a percent. I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) adding this to the bill. I appreciate the support on the part of the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe). This is the right thing to do. I appreciate the fact that we have as many cosponsors as we do to ensure that this stays in the bill. There are 1.8 million Federal employees. They work very hard. They deserve this equity provision. I trust it will stay in the bill and be enacted.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis). As the gentleman has stated, this amendment would simply prohibit funds from being expended to implement the administration's contractor responsibility rules until the General Accounting Office completes an ongoing study of them. We are not trying to kill the rules, we are just saying the GAO ought to look into the basis for them and make a determination as to what is the problem, and then suggest some remedy for that problem, if a problem exists. Let me emphasize at the outset that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), the gentlemen from California, Mr. Ose and Mr. Dooley, myself, and a number of Members from both sides of the aisle have been involved with this issue for almost a year. When the rule was first proposed, we met with administration officials to express deep concerns about the rule's justification and about its potential impact on the industries and the workers in our districts. We questioned whether contracting officers are really equipped to apply a wide array of complex Federal laws to routine procurement decisions. We are asking these contracting officers to be familiar with all of the Federal laws, to make some determination as to whether there is satisfactory compliance with all the Federal laws before they carry out their responsibilities as to who is eligible for bidding on a contract and who ought to get that contract. Many of us were concerned that the rule runs completely contrary to the procurement reforms that I believe are a major achievement of the Clinton-Gore administration. Unfortunately, very little has changed in the year in which we have been working with the administration. Our questions have not been fully resolved. The contractor responsibility rule remains a solution in search of a problem. At no point has the administration furnished us with an adequate justification for why this new rule is necessary, despite the fact that it could adversely affect thousands of American workers employed by high-tech companies, by small and large businesses, defense contractors, and institutions of higher education. The rule would vastly expand the power of Federal contracting officers under existing procurement law. They could cite a single adverse finding by an administrative law judge, a complaint from a Federal agency, or an order or decision from an agency as a reason to disqualify a contractor from doing business with the Federal government. Unlike existing law, there would be no requirement for a nexus between the alleged violation of Federal law and the contractor's ability to perform the contract. We are trying to get contracts awarded to people who can perform the contract, and these things can potentially be totally unrelated to the ability to perform the contract. I do not believe we should put Federal contracting officers in that position. They should not have to determine whether a company's compliance with a wide range of Federal laws, unrelated to the performance of a contract, is sufficient to allow the company to do business with the Federal government. There is no way that they can have that kind of information. The only guidance the rule provides in allowing contracting officers to make a nonresponsibility determination is the vague and potentially arbitrary standard of ``credible information.'' What is ``credible information?'' It is entirely up to the contracting officer to determine what that means, ``credible information.'' It can mean a complaint, it can mean a rumor, whatever they determine to be credible information. Let me emphasize that the importance of this issue extends far beyond the many industries that are potentially affected by the rule. Consider, for example, the comments of Stanley Ikenberry, the President of the American Council on Education. I quote: ``American colleges and universities, which receive over $18 billion annually in Federal grants and contracts, would be directly affected by these proposed regulations.'' He said these ``revisions could have the result of creating a `blacklist' of contractors . . .'', and this is his word, ``a blacklist of contractors.'' Mr. Ikenberry continues, ``The strong and cooperative relationship between the Federal Government and the country's colleges and universities has reaped countless gains for each party and for the Nation as a whole through the contracting process. In the interest of furthering that relationship, we urge your support of the Davis/Moran amendment to H.R. 4871.'' This is Dr. Ikenberry's letter. It was sent on behalf of the American Council on Education, the Association of American Universities, and a number of other groups that represent American Higher Education. American Higher Education is scared of this regulation. They strongly support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, it should be adopted. Mr. Chairman, again, this amendment needs to be adopted. The blacklisting rule makes Federal procurement much more complicated, not less so. It is contrary to the procurement reforms that this administration has achieved. It confers excessive new authority on Federal contract officers without a justification. It could potentially stifle innovation and job growth for thousands of American workers. This amendment needs to be adopted, and I strongly urge that the Congress do so. Again, I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) for introducing this amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the FY 2001 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill is a bare-bones measure. This bill provides for a mere $13.3 billion--about $200 million less than the FY2000 Act and $1.8 billion, or 12%, below the President's $15.1 billion FY2001 request. Most disconcerting are the inadequate funding levels for debt relief and HlV/AlDS, and language placing restrictions on international funds for family planning. The Foreign Operations Appropriations bill contains only $82 million of the $472 million requested for multilateral debt relief assistance. This is appalling. Developing countries are struggling to pay debts that are crippling their economies. These countries have had to make drastic cuts in education and health care in order to make payments on these debts. Debt relief is good moral and economic policy. Relieving the debt burden borne by the world's poorest nations will significantly improve the lives of millions of people around the world, while also serving U.S. interests by promoting stability and self-sufficiency in these countries. Last month, the United Nations issued a report that uncovered the major devastation of HIV/AIDS occurring in Sub-Saharan Africa. The report stated that one in five adults in Sub-Saharan Africa are infected with the HIV virus. How can the United States sit back and allow such suffering to go on? The answer is we cannot. Back in April, the President declared AIDS in Africa to be a threat to U.S. national security. This epidemic has the power to devastate economies, overthrow governments, and set off wars. While some believed this statement was an ``overreaction,'' I am convinced that this is an accurate assessment. If we do not provide the necessary funding to contain this epidemic today, the U.S. and the rest of the international community will have to carry a greater burden in the future. We can no longer allow an isolationist approach to guide our foreign policy, which is exactly what this bill does. As a world leader, the United States should promote globalization and embrace a pro-active, internationalist vision. Mr. Chairman, I am discouraged with the inadequate funding provided under the FY2001 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. It is my hope that we will be able to resolve many of the shortcomings in this bill and bring the funding levels closer to the Administration's request. However, in its current form, I regret that I will have to vote against this bill and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the 20th Anniversary World Congress, which is organized by the Czechoslovak Society of Arts and Sciences (SVU), under the auspices of the Czech and Slovak Embassies and in close cooperation with American University, scheduled for August 9-13, 2000, in Washington, D.C. The central theme for this World Congress is: ``Civil Society and Democracy into the New Millennium.'' It will feature speakers from both sides of the Atlantic and it promises to be the pivotal event of the year 2000 for those interested in things Czech or Slovak. The three day program at American University will comprise numerous discussion panels and symposia, covering practically every aspect of human endeavor from the arts and humanities to social and behavioral sciences, and science and technology. I am indeed proud to salute the efforts of the organizers and particularly would like to commend the efforts of Mr. Eugene L. Krizek, a resident of my congressional district, for his generous and untiring efforts on behalf of this project.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for her attempted generosity. I will do what I can.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, after he hears what I have to say probably not, because I support the Pelosi amendment very strongly and I do not support this bill. It is the wrong bill from a diplomatic standpoint, from an economic standpoint and perhaps most importantly from a moral standpoint. In many ways it is like walking down the street seeing a starving kid with his hand out in front of a store front, putting your hand on a couple of bucks and then decide, no, and walking in the store and buying yourself a cigar instead. Why are we doing this? Why are we so dramatically cutting debt relief, family planning, the assistance that starving people in Asia and particularly in Africa need, the health care, the educational assistance? We are doing it to give ourselves a trillion dollar tax cut. That is the only reason we got such stringent allocations to our appropriations subcommittees, so we can afford a trillion dollar tax cut. We are the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. In fact, one-earner families making $40,000 are paying 5 percent on average in Federal income taxes. Two-earner families making $70,000 on average pay 10 percent. We have never been better off. We have never had more capacity to do what is right for the rest of the world. And so here when we are confronted with the opportunity to do what is right, to change the lives of millions of people, one-quarter of the population in many of these African countries are dying of AIDS. Think of the suffering. We can relieve that suffering. Instead we decide to give ourselves a trillion dollar tax cut. It is wrong and it is immoral. status and most recent developments On June 27, the House Appropriations Committee ordered reported its version of the FY2001 Foreign Operations Appropriations (H.R. 4811), providing $13.3 billion, about $200 million less than the FY2000 Act (after adjusting for Wye River aid package), and $1.8 billion, or 12%, below the President's $15.1 billion FY2001 request. The House bill increases the President's request for child survival and infectious disease programs ($815 million) and international fund for Ireland ($25 million). Like the Senate measure, the House bill reduces the President's proposed budget in many areas: aid to the former Soviet Union ($740 million; -$90 million), debt reduction ($82.4 million; -$180 million), the World Bank's International Development Association ($576.6 million; -$260 million), and the Global Environment Facility ($35.8 million; -$140 million). The House measure further continues current abortion restrictions applied to USAID population aid. H.R. 4811 dramatically cuts funding for the poorest countries in the world, disproportionately hurting African and Latin American countries. The bill contains only $82 million of the $472 million (requested for multilateral debt relief assistance--in complete disregard of the commitment made by the G-7 countries more than 2 years ago to provide urgent debt relief. Overall cuts to programs that assist Africa and Latin America total 15%. The bill cuts funding for international financial institutions that provide loans to poor countries by one- third. Cuts of this magnitude will make it impossible to halt the spread of infectious disease, alleviate poverty, and provide access to family planning. The countries of sub-Saharan Africa are forced to spend more each year repaying debt than they are able to spend on primary education and health care. According to the World Bank, sub-Saharan African governments owe foreign creditors an average of almost $400 for every man, woman, and child--more than most Africans make in a year. H.R. 4811 cuts funding to fight AIDS by nearly 20%, providing only $202 million of the $244 million requested. In many countries, up to one-fourth of the adult population is infected with this horrible disease and funds are desperately needed to combat its spread. In addition, H.R. 4811 cuts funds requested for family planning 29% below the amount requested. The bill codifies the ``Mexico City'' restrictions on international funds for family planning and extends those restrictions to all forms of lobbying. The President's senior advisors are recommending that he veto the bill. debt relief and h. res. 546 A group of Democratic House members urged colleagues today to vote down the rule (H. Res. 546) governing floor debate on a fiscal 2001 foreign operations appropriations bill because it would not permit amendments to boost funding for debt relief to the world's poorest nations. The rule would not protect an amendment by Representative Pelosi, to provide an extra $390 million on top of the bill's $82 million allocation to match the amount President Clinton requested for debt relief over fiscal years 2000 and 2001. Treasury Secretary Summers and AFL-CIO President John Sweeney joined lawmakers at a press conference criticizing GOP leaders for not supporting Clinton's request. ``It is imperative for our country morally, economically and diplomatically to provide this debt relief,'' Summers said.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to oppose this bill and the shortsighted cuts it makes to the budgets of the agencies and employees under the Subcommittee's jurisdiction. This bill shortchanges many of the agencies responsible for local law enforcement, patent and trademarks, advanced technology programs, international peacekeeping, and trade monitoring and compliance. In particular, it severely constrains the operations of the Patent and Trademark Office, which safeguards our nation's intellectual property rights. At a time when inventions in the fields of science and technology have driven our nation's economy, we should not be cutting back funding for this critical mission. Maintaining a sufficient investment in the PTO is absolutely vital to the future of our economic growth and prosperity. The Committee's bill also provides insufficient funding to combat the threat of terrorism and withholds $100 million of our assessments for participation in the United Nations and other international organizations. It cuts the Administration's request for the COPS program by half It also fails to provide sufficient funding for the Commission on Civil Rights and the Small Business Administration. In addition, this bill contains some hidden riders that undermine our nation's gun enforcement laws and language undermining the Justice Department's current lawsuit to recover funds from the tobacco industry. The bill includes a provision for the second straight year that would place a moratorium on using funds in the bill to pay overtime to Justice Department attorneys. The attorneys who work for the Justice Department are some of the most dedicated civil servants anywhere on earth. They must often leave their homes and families for weeks at a time to try cases in distant parts of the country. They are involved in stressful cases, often involving serious organized crime or complex litigation. By denying these lawyers compensation for their overtime hours, we are denying them what other attorneys in the Federal government rightfully earn. It is clearly a hypocrisy to have the Justice Department, the very agency tasked with enforcing our laws, attempt to bypass the law to avoid paying overtime compensation to its lawyers who carry out the laws of our nation. This bill also fails to provide funding for anti-gun violence media campaigns that replicate Richmond's ``Project Exile,'' and does not appropriate money to expand research into ``smart gun'' technology. Mr. Chairman, for all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and look for a better approach to funding the agencies in this bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill and the shortsighted cuts it makes to the budgets of the agencies and employees under the Subcommittee's jurisdiction. There is a lot of smoke and mirrors in this bill. Even with the funding restored by the Manager's amendment, this bill is deficient in many critical areas. The bill's total appropriation is still $9.8 million less than the current year's appropriation. It would still leave the Congressional Research Service, an office that every Member of Congress relies upon to serve our constituents, underfunded and ill-equipped to fulfill its mission. I spoke in strong opposition to this bill when we considered it in the Appropriations Committee because it would have gutted the agencies funded in this bill and resulted in up to 1,700 employees being laid off. This would mean RIFs and lay-offs of the hardworking men and women who work for the Capitol Police, the Library of Congress, GAO, GPO and the other agencies in this bill. To many of you, these are faceless individuals whose work may not be directly felt. However, to me, not only are many of these individuals my constituents, but they are also devoted Federal employees who have foregone higher paying jobs in the private sector because they believe in public service. They have families and mortgages and do good work. They have been subjected to possible RIFs because this Congress wants to provide a tax cut rather than maintain the current funding and cost- of-living adjustment for these agencies. On another matter, the proposed amendment to establish a lockbox on this bill is a budgetary gimmick. It has the gloss of sounding fiscally responsible, but it actually ties the hands of this Committee and forces irresponsible cuts in order to provide a large tax cut. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and look for a better approach to funding the agencies in this bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) very much for her comments. They were right on.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, as well, offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), to strike section 111 from this bill. This is an issue of basic fairness for thousands of Justice Department attorneys in my district and throughout the Nation. The Department of Justice is the only Federal agency violating Federal wage law. For the second straight year, the Justice Department has asked, and the committee has agreed, to insert into the bill a moratorium on using funds appropriated under this bill to pay overtime to Justice Department lawyers. This moratorium is being imposed at a time when this issue was before the courts as part of a class action lawsuit brought by DOJ lawyers to force their Department to pay overtime in compliance with title 5, and it is entirely possible that the courts will rule this year in favor of the plaintiff lawyers, and then we have this language that prevents them from being able to implement the decision of the court. These assistant U.S. Attorneys work nearly 2 million hours of overtime in one recent year, but were compensated for only 63 hours. They work 2 million hours and were compensated for 63 hours. They have to keep two separate records, one real and one phony. We are just asking that the real one be recognized instead of the phony one. The other attorneys in the other Federal agencies are getting fully compensated for overtime, and our assistant U.S. Attorneys are getting paid less than the attorneys in other Federal agencies who are doing the same work. These attorneys who work for the Justice Department, though, have particularly difficult jobs. Many of them have to leave their homes and families for weeks at a time to try cases in distant parts of the country. They are involved in stressful cases often involving serious organized crime or complex litigation. I have heard of Department of Justice lawyers being awakened in the middle of the night to argue the merits of an emergency injunction for the Government. Some have received threats because of their work. They perform these services at a lower salary than they can work in the private sector. As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) cited, a first year law student in many of those law firms is making six figures, and these people come in at $40,000 on average. Senior lawyers certainly on K Street are making five times what we pay these assistant U.S. attorneys for the Department of Justice. It is not fair. The problem is that the American people are going to suffer because we are not going to be able to retain the best lawyers. We are not going to have the best representation if we do not compensate them fairly. They are treated in a manner that is completely contrary to the way that lawyers and other Federal agencies are treated, and it is just unfair. It is not a partisan issue, Mr. Chairman. The Congressional Budget Office has advised us that section 111 will have no fiscal impact; so for any number of reasons, but the most important is fairness, I urge my colleagues to do what is fair and equitable for our Nation's Justice Department.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I offered this amendment in the full Committee on Appropriations. I had to withdraw it because there were no decent offsets, and there still are not any decent offsets. The gentleman from North Carolina knows how I feel about that. I do not think he likes these offsets either, taking it out of statistical sampling in the Census Bureau and out of cultural exchange programs. The basic problem we are faced with is that we have a scorekeeping set of restrictions that are both arcane and inane. This is money that is paid by the users of this agency. They asked for us to put together an organization that was modern and efficient and professional so that our economy can continue to grow. This may be the Federal agency most responsible for the productivity, the innovation that is spurring our economic growth. And what are we faced with? A situation where these people who have paid their user fees into this agency cannot even have that money used for the purpose for which it was intended. In fact, there is $295 million that has been paid in in user fees, and this amendment does not even attempt to use all of that money. What it tries to do is restore the Patent and Trademark funding up to the President's request, which is $134 million more than what is in this appropriations bill. I do not like these offsets, but I also know that it is not right to be crippling the Patent and Trademark Office's ability to process the patents, the trademarks, the innovation that enable us to be the leader of the global economy. The reality is that the patents are now up by 12 percent, trademark applications are up by 42 percent. This bill has a 3 percent increase. We cannot keep pace with the demand. Now, if this was a slow economy, if we were in some kind of a recession, if capital markets were not looking for innovative ideas, then maybe things would slow down. But the Patent and Trademark Office is simply trying to keep up with the pace of this economy and we are putting the brakes on. That is what this does, puts the brakes on. So all we are trying to do is to enable Patent and Trademark to be able to at least partially meet the increased demand. When patents are up by more than 12 percent, trademarks are up by more than 42 percent, we ought to be able to increase to give a moderate increase in funding to the Patent and Trademark Office. As far as these offsets, as I say, the scorekeeping is arcane and inane, but I do think some rationality will be put into the appropriations process when we get into the conference. I am sure that the Senate is going to recognize that there ought to be some increase and that, in fact, the scorekeeping just does not make sense. If, however, this does not pass, then the PTO would be forced to operate with 25 percent less than the fees paid in by the users and it is going to cost much longer delay in the number of patents that are pending. That means that these companies and individuals cannot go out and get the kind of money they need to fund their new ideas, that people in other countries and competitors are going to be able to get the jump on them. But, most importantly, our economy is not going to be able to realize its full potential. So this is something that makes sense. Our scorekeeping does not make sense but, hopefully, we will be able to correct that. For that reason, I urge support of the amendment but with the caveat that I do so very reluctantly because these are lousy offsets. And I know that the gentleman suggesting this agrees that they are lousy offsets and we are going to have to fix that as the appropriations process moves forward.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. First of all, in response to my friend from Wyoming, the number of arrests and prosecutions are up significantly since 1992. They are obviously not adequate enough, but if we had more BATF enforcement officers, that would help that situation. Certainly public safety officers are not endangered when they can obtain guns, when they are licensed, when they are trained. And I would think many of them would like to have a child safety lock on their gun when it is at home and their kids might have access to it. But, Mr. Chairman, I want to try to paraphrase from Dante's Inferno. He talks about the fact that the lowest level and the depths of hell is reserved for those who, knowing the difference between good and evil, choose not to become involved, thereby letting evil prevail. In fact, Rabbi Saperstein, in his letter to all of us, urging rejection of the Hostettler amendment, quotes Leviticus and Jewish tradition that we should not sit idly by the blood of our neighbors. How can we not get involved when more than a dozen kids a day are dying of firearms. Maybe we do not believe that. Maybe we do not care, because most of those deaths are in urban minority low-income communities. When it happens in a white suburban middle-class community we read about it at least. Or maybe we do not even read about it; maybe we do not care about it. But the fact is we ought to do something about it. It is wrong. These children are losing their lives because guns are all over the place. They are pervasive in our society, and that is wrong. When 411 communities try to get together to do something about it, to try to protect the kids in their communities, what do we do? We try to stop them. We do not let them get away with that interfering. Let us see what constructive alternatives our colleagues have, because what we are doing today is not enough: 300,000 deaths, a dozen kids a day. Show us what those on the other side of the aisle would do about it, more than rhetoric.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 293, I was unavoidably detained on official business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, tobacco use kills 430,000 people a year. That's more than the number who die from murder, suicide, AIDS, alcohol and all illegal drugs combined. The number of people suffering from tobacco-related illnesses today is in the millions. A great many of these deaths are attributable to deliberate congressional action over the years of subsidizing tobacco companies financially through farming, marketing and export. The Congress gave support and credibility to the public statements of tobacco companies that smoking tobacco wasn't harmful. And perhaps the most culpable congressional act was to include cigarettes in the package of sea rations and authorized supplies that we provided our soldiers, sailors and airmen. We encouraged our brave, strong, patriotic servicemen to smoke cigarettes. We instructed them to ``light 'em if you had 'em''--and of course because we supplied them, most of them had 'em. And now those very same soldiers are now paying the price of that official policy. They're suffering from emphysema, cancer of the lungs, and the larynx, and the mouth and the throat. Well, the decades of deliberate deceit by the tobacco companies has finally been exposed. But they've already made their millions selling cigarettes to the military, they've made their billions selling to the American public and they're still making billions marketing an instrument of death and suffering to the rest of the world. But what of our veterans who sacrificed their lives to serve their country. Those strong, brave soldiers are lying in homes and hospitals, suffering ignominious suffering and death. They're paying the real price of corporate deceit and congressional consent. Why shouldn't those tobacco companies at least pay for some of the price of those trusting soldiers' health care? This amendment says they should. We protect tobacco companies from the legal means of making them responsible.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today I commend the Women's Lightweight Eight Crew of T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria, VA, for their fine season this spring. The T.C. lightweight crew captured gold medals at the Virginia State Championships, the prestigious Stotesbury Cup Regatta in Philadelphia, and the Scholastic Rowing Association of America championship. They followed these triumphs with a silver medal at the Canadian Secondary Rowing Association Championship at St. Catherine's, Ontario. Their success this year continues a tradition of strong lightweight rowing at T.C. Williams High School. The Women's Eight has captured gold medals at Stotesbury and the Scholastic Rowing Association for three of the last four years. This lightweight crew excels not only athletically but in their academic work as well. The crew has a collective grade point average that is close to 4.0. Crew members are: Jo Beck, Mary Higgins, Carter Kidd, Riley McDonald, Janie Roden, Kaitlin Donley, Catherine Freeman, Anna Gullickson, and Clare McIntyre. The coach of the Women's Lightweight Eight, Steve Weir, completed his 25th year coaching women at T.C. Steve has had unparalleled success, winning the Stotesbury Cup for lightweights 12 out of 18 attempts. Parents of the girls who row for Steve say that he has had a major impact on their lives both athletically and in other aspects through the example of his integrity and devotion to excellence. I am very proud of Steve Weir and his fine crew.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, decades of deceit by the tobacco industry has caused Federal taxpayers to spend billions for smoking-related illnesses. The Justice Department is seeking recovery of these funds, as well as injunctive relief to stop the companies from marketing to children and engaging in other deceptive and illegal practices. They need to be able to have the resources for that suit. Now, the beneficiaries of that suit would be the Departments of Health, Education and Welfare, or the Health Care Financing Administration, who has spent so much money on Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for tobacco-related illnesses, and the Veterans Administration, because so many thousands of veterans have suffered and died from tobacco-related illnesses. This amendment would say that the Veterans Administration cannot move this money to the Justice Department to prosecute these cases. The idea, the reason, the motivation is so that this suit cannot go forward. The Veterans Administration spends $4 billion a year treating tobacco-related illnesses. We passed a law, the Medical Care Recovery Act, that says that any costs recovered by the Justice Department would be returned to the Veterans Administration. They desperately need that money. Why would we not seek that money from what is the source, the cause of much of that suffering and death? This rider is wrong. It should not have been attached to this bill. For decades, tobacco companies have deliberately misled Americans regarding the risks and the harmful effects of smoking while 400,000 people have died each year from tobacco-related illnesses. As recently as 1998, within the last 2 years, the chairman of Phillip Morris testified under oath and said, I am unclear in my own mind as to whether anybody dies from cigarette smoking-related illnesses. That man is an intelligent, otherwise responsible man, so he must have been deliberately trying to deceive the court and the American people. In my mind, there can be no other conclusion. That is not tolerable. If this Congress is not willing to reimburse the Veterans Administration for the costs of this deception, then we should do it for the 3,000 teenagers who start smoking every day, at least for the 1,000 who will die because they did. This amendment should be supported. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, since its creation in 1965, the National Endowment for the Arts has issued more than 110,000 grants; and of this total, fewer than 20 have been considered controversial. We can match that 20 against grant recipients who received 35 of the past 46 National Book Awards, National Book Critics Circle Awards, and Pulitzer Prizes in fiction and poetry since 1990. Thirty-five of those recipients have been NEA recipients. Match it against the grant recipients of PBS's Great Performances that were nominated for 121 Emmys and won 51 Emmys. Imagine all of those who are recipients of NEA awards. Great performances or small, the NEA has supported hundreds of professional orchestras, dance companies, nonprofit theaters. And before that NEA support, they really did not exist. But given NEA seed money and given the credibility that they get by NEA choosing to make an award to them, even if it be a small award, they then go out and raise substantial amounts that are in many multiples of the actual money that NEA gets. But that little seed, that credibility, makes a world of difference. Federal funding for music, dance, theater, literature, and visual arts is not just about the quality of life; it is about investments to fulfill our human economic potential. By directing funds toward culturally diverse, educational community-oriented programs, we provide places where at-risk youth can express themselves creatively rather than destructively. One witness provides a living testimony for why Congress should increase NEA's budget. Three years ago, I know I was moved by the testimony and I think all of the members of the subcommittee were moved by the testimony of a young opera singer named Denyce Graves. She testified that without the NEA, she never would have heard an opera, let alone determined that she was interested in pursuing a career as an opera singer. Growing up in Washington, D.C., Ms. Graves was only a few miles away from the Kennedy Center but because her family could never afford Kennedy Center productions, it might as well have been a world away. It was not until Ms. Graves, as a teenager, saw her first opera at a local community theater funded in part through the NEA that she changed her whole career aspirations. She was so inspired by the music, the drama, and the passion that she decided at that moment she would become an opera singer. Since that day, Denyce Graves has performed as Carmen at the Met and sung all over the world in major opera productions. But she has never forgotten the role that NEA had in her life. She devotes a large amount of her time working in community theater groups sponsored by the NEA. She talks to inner-city kids about the importance of arts as an alternative to violence and about how they can find constructive ways to express their passions, their fears, their desires and their dreams. That is what this is all about, funneling people's passions into constructive things rather than destructive pursuits. Promoting the arts improves our culture and helps instill civility. Arts and the humanities can lift people up and show them a different way of looking at the world. This Congress should continue to help the young Denyce Graves of the world to achieve their dream. Today we have a chance to increase our investment for this worthwhile program. We can vote to increase opportunities for our citizens, to enrich their lives, their communities, and improve the social fabric of our Nation. We ought to give more Americans the chance to enjoy the arts the way Denyce Graves and countless others have had that opportunity because of the National Endowment for the Arts. The NEA, the NEH, the Museums, all that we do for the arts pays multiple-fold dividends. It is part of our quality of life and part of our social and economic progress. We ought to increase that investment today.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the very distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), our senior Democrat in the Congress, for yielding me this time and for his strong support of this conference report. Mr. Speaker, the Internet has become an integral part of our daily lives at work and at home. Because of the Internet, the American people have access to services and information that were unheard of 5 or 10 years ago. Approval of this conference report is a step towards ensuring that American businesses and consumers are able to take the fullest advantage of the digital revolution by being able to contract as well as to communicate over the Internet. This legislation promotes the use of electronic signatures by providing a consistent and predictable national framework of rules governing the use of electronic signatures. It will provide consumers and companies doing business on the Internet legal certainty over electronic signatures until all 50 States pass their own legislation on the legality of electronic transactions under the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act. It is not an attempt to regulate electronic commerce. It merely declares the validity of electronically created contracts and records. But it retains individual choice and personal security. As the supportive statements of the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking Democrat, have underscored, this is balanced, bipartisan legislation that will allow the American people to utilize the Internet to its fullest potential. So I urge a unanimous vote on this conference report.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I can understand the trends within this country. They are historic towards protectionism and isolationism. But they have not prevailed. And we have benefited as a result of our confidence in the future, our ability to compete. But if we look at who in China is opposed to this treaty, who wants us to reject it tomorrow, certainly the military wants us to reject it, because they want their people to believe that they should be putting their resources into gearing up for a military confrontation with the United States. So they want us to reject it. The people who run the state-owned enterprises want us to reject this treaty because they are afraid of competition with the United States. They do not want to have to worry about providing better working conditions for their people, worrying about the environment, providing the kinds of benefits that we provide in higher standard of living to the people who work for American corporations. And certainly the Communist Party wants a no vote. They want a no vote because they know if they are put under the international rule of law and if they have almost unfettered Internet access to their people, if they cannot control what their people read and see and believe, they, the Communist Party, lose control over their people; the people of China will be liberated; the people of China will be able to deal with us. That free enterprise will prevail, that democracy will prevail, that human rights will prevail. All of these hardliners in China want a no vote. But America needs a yes vote. This may be the most important thing we can do for our children's children, from a military standpoint, from an economic standpoint, and from a moral standpoint. China needs to be an economically independent ally, not an isolated military threat. They need to be an economic opportunity, not someone who is closed off. And certainly, the people of China need an opportunity to understand that we have it right, that individual freedoms is what the human condition is all about. Give the Chinese people a chance. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the sponsors of this amendment are not being subversive, and I do not think we are being naive. I think we are being responsible to the taxpayers, to the extent that it is responsible. Now, I would certainly agree with my good friend who just spoke that we ought not disclose any kind of information that would jeopardize our ability to protect American citizens. But this does not do that. When my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), said he was offering the amendment and would I like to be a cosponsor, I said, ``Of course. Why not?'' That is still my reaction. Of course, we will not disclose the cumulative amount. Why not? It is not an astronomical amount; it is a very reasonable portion of the Federal budget. In fact, when you compare it to anyone that might be considered a potential threat, it is a very minimal amount to protect this country. But we have a responsibility to the taxpayers. It is their money; it is not ours. It is one thing not to give the taxpayers a receipt or an accounting of how we might spend the money; it is quite another to ask for a blank check. Just sign the bottom line, we will fill in the amount. I do not think that is the way we do things, that we ought to do things in a democracy. We ought to have as much transparency as possible. We ought to do everything that we can to restore trust in government. This is not a totalitarian society. I could see it if we were operating under a fascist or certainly a communist system. You would never imagine disclosing these kinds of amounts. But we have nothing to hide. We have very responsible members of the Committee on Appropriations on both sides of the aisle, and certainly the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) is an extraordinarily responsible leader on our side, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) as well. Now, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) is supporting, but so is Warren Rudman, a former Senator, certainly not a subversive, certainly not someone that does anything in a radical kind of manner. General Harold Brown; we have the former CIA director Turner; we have any number of people that looked at this and decided this is not an irresponsible thing to do. In fact, this is a responsible thing to do in light of the requirement that we have to be responsive to the American taxpayer. So I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment ought to be included, and it probably ought to be included as a matter of course in each successive year. It is nice that the CIA or our intelligence agencies chose to disclose the amount in 1997 and 1998, and probably will be disclosed this year; but I think we ought to say as well that the legislative branch recognizes that this is an appropriate thing to do in light of the fact that it is not our money, it is the taxpayers' money. It was a recommendation, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) said, of the commission that was put together to look at these types of national security issues. They came up with a recommendation that the amount be disclosed to the public, the overall amount for the intelligence budget on a current basis. This is not on a current basis, this is the previous fiscal year. I think it is a very moderate piece of legislation, it is a reasonable thing to do, and I would hope that we would not have much controversy over something like this and deal with more difficult, complex matters.