Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the United States has always had a very special relationship with the continent of Africa, and, with few exceptions, it has been a relationship of exploitation. The African people, with few exceptions, were the only people who were brought to this country, who did not come to this country of their own volition. Most people did. They were brought here to be used, and, in fact, much of our agricultural economy was built on the backs of black people. Many of the most menial jobs that the middle and upper classes in America wanted performed were performed by people that were brought here from Africa. But, despite the obstacles, many people of African descent have risen to positions of prominence and stature and leadership. Two such people are the floor managers today, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), and many of our most respected colleagues. But if you listen to them, and they will tell you that what the continent of Africa needs and deserves is mutual respect. Mutual respect. They do not need paternalism and direct aid as much as they need the ability to sit down at the table with us as peers in an atmosphere of equanimity, to deal with Africa as a people and as a continent that we need as much as they need us, and that is what this bill does. This bill establishes a trade policy with Africa that will be, yes, in our best interests, but will also enable the continent of Africa to develop its human and natural resources. This is a bill we need as a country. This is in our national interests. It should be a unanimous vote in favor of this bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, as the lead Democratic sponsor of the House version of this bill, the Stock Options Preservation Act, I want to thank all of the people in both Chambers and particularly on both sides of the aisle who put aside partisanship and traditional turf battles to get this important legislation passed into law. Particularly, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), who reached out to Members on both sides of the aisle and worked with the administration to craft meaningful, substantive legislation. I wish we could do more of this. Not only is this a substantive piece of legislation, but it also ought to be an example of how we can do things when we can get together in a bipartisan way. What drove this, of course, was the understanding that in business, there is only one way to increase total compensation without raising inflation, and that is increasing productivity. Increased productivity means that workers can take home more and that businesses can earn more. It represents a win/win scenario and is directly responsible for the tremendous economic growth we have experienced over the last 8 years. It has been unbelievable to be able to keep inflation down, while wages and benefits are going up; and, of course, it is all because of the increased productivity that we are seeing throughout our workforce. This is not just because of technological advances; it is achieved by improving the way in which employees work together. When employers and employees share the same goals, which is the success of a business, then productivity increases. Employees and employers both win, and of course the American economy wins too. That is why we have this enormous surplus. We are finally going to be able to stop paying down the debt, investing in education and research, and setting aside money for our retirement. It is all because we have this tremendously more productive economy. As one example, let me just share an example. One large company that distributed food products was losing millions of dollars each year because of very low recycling rates. So when it imprinted the logo for its stock option program on all of its products, the recycling rates went up to 99 percent; 99 percent got recycled. It was because the employees realized that recycling boxes and other waste products saved the company millions, that improved the bottom line and consequently, the stock price. No longer are stock options exclusively for the CEO and top management. Two-thirds of large companies give options to portions of their nonexecutive workforce, and over one-fourth of those companies give options to all of their employees. Stock options unite employees. Some businesses have stock tickers in their cafeterias. When the price is up, the employees all feel a sense of achievement. When it is down, they know they have more work to do. It overcomes divisions that oftentimes pit employees against employers, and that is better for all of us. It promotes a sense that employees from the CEO to the line worker in all parts of the country are part of the same team. This has been a long time in coming, but when we can work as a team and we can stop that gap between management and the workforce, we are all better off. This new economy should bring increased opportunities for all American workers. Stock option programs provide that opportunity by making workers into owners, investing them in the success of the business. The administration has endorsed this bill, the Senate passed it unanimously, and I strongly support it, and I trust it will pass unanimously. This is what the new economy should be all about and what the American workforce should be all about, being invested more in the product, in the efficiency and the effectiveness of the way in which we develop a product and not just in the process. We are all part of this economy, and workers need to be owners. Stock options are enabling us to achieve that. Again, I want to congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), for being one of the first people to bring that up, and as I said, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), and all of the other speakers, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). It is both sides of the aisle, and this is the way we get things done, and this is very important for our economy.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank and acknowledge the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for his Federal management reform efforts. He is doing a very fine job on the Committee on Government Reform, and I congratulate him. And also, certainly, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for their efforts. In many areas, this is a committee that can work together and this is certainly an example of good, bipartisan constructive legislation. I especially want to recognize the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and his fine staff for their terrific work on this bill. Mr. Speaker, this ought to be a no-brainer. But it is designed to address something that for years has gone on. It is a classic example of the right hand not only not letting the left hand know what they were doing, but they were working at cross purposes. If we ask people working in the Federal Government, particularly in Labor or Commerce or HHS, they will say that one of the most serious problems today is the fallout from the new economy of people working in the old economy having their jobs replaced by automation or by competition from overseas. Mr. Speaker, while 80 percent of them get jobs, and better paying jobs, there are 20 percent of them who do not, who are left by the wayside of the new economy highway. And these people want to work hard, they have got the will and the ability, but they do not have the opportunity. In many cases, it is because they do not have a 4-year college degree. They do not have the preparation, the skills with computers. We are not providing sufficient opportunity for them. And then there are other people who cannot afford a 4-year college degree. They do not need a 4-year college degree. On the other hand, we have the Federal Government here saying that if one wants to bid for Federal contracts, they have to have a 4-year college degree on many of these information technology contracts. They do not have to. They do not need it. In fact, all this bill does is to say that if a contracting officer can justify these higher standards, then fine, go ahead with it. But if they cannot justify requiring these college degrees and these higher certifications, then do not require it. Allow companies to hire people that can perform the work. Put the emphasis on the quality product, not the process. In Virginia, we are recognizing that this is one of the prime causes of the technology shortage. We have a shortage of almost 30,000 vacancies. We cannot fill them. Many of them are in Federal contract work. This is silly. We have the people, the warm bodies; but we do not have the preparation, and it does not make sense to require a 4-year degree. Mr. Speaker, in this period of unprecedented labor shortage, certainly we ought to take the initiative. I wish the executive branch had taken the initiative itself, but this bill is necessary. I am sure that they are going to enact it because the current practice drives up prices and limits the competition for Federal contracts. We do not want that. That does not serve anybody's purposes. It has already been said, and I do not want to beat up on Bill Gates, of all people. We keep talking about the fact that he does not have a college degree. Well, he does not; but he did not need it to be successful. He is a classic example. And there are any number of others as well. I think we made our case on that. The Department of Commerce recently reported that there are more than 600,000 positions in the information technology field that have yet to be filled. And, in fact, they estimate that over the next 10 years we are going to need more than 100,000 a year. I saw a figure today of 130,000 a year. We do not have those people. We do not need to be sending those people through college. We need to be getting them into community colleges, junior colleges, computer training courses, whatever gives them the skills that are necessary. Now, we are going to get a whole lot of flack when we bring up the H(1)(b) bill. People are going to say we are bringing in laborers from overseas and taking our jobs and so on. My response is going to be, look, raising the cap on H(1)(b) visas is a short-term solution. We have vacancies and we need to fill them and fill them with qualified people, and bringing these people in that can go to work immediately with skills just pumps iron into our economic bloodstream. We need to do this. It makes a lot of sense. But that is not the long-term solution. Mr. Speaker, the long-term solution is to train people. And not with 4 years; give them the specific training they need. Give them the opportunities; give them the access to these information technology jobs. If we do, we are going to enable our American workforce to realize its full potential. If we put these kinds of obstacles in the way, all we are doing is limiting our potential economically and socially. So I think I have made my point. This bill needs to be supported strongly and unanimously, and I trust it will be.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I certainly want to be associated with his fine remarks in congratulating Mr. John Koskinen for leading the executive branch in the Y2K effort, and particularly the Federal workforce. But I also wanted to be associated with the remarks of the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and the remarks of the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and all of those folks on both sides of the aisle who made this such a successful bipartisan effort. Mr. Speaker, this is one of the real success stories in terms of legislation, because we had nothing to read about on January 1. The old axiom with the media is if it bleeds, it leads, and there was no bleeding on January 1, because the Congress, the House and Senate leadership, and the executive branch recognized the importance, devoted their attention to it, came up with the legislation that was necessary, and certainly the executive branch came up with the resources and the leadership that was absolutely essential to make it a nonevent. I do want to recognize the efforts of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) as well in a related matter. In the private sector it was the gentleman from Virginia who introduced the Y2K liability legislation which ensured that the prediction that the American Bar Association made, which was that there could be as much as $1 trillion of liability suits brought by trial lawyers on January 1, never came to pass because the Congress again enacted preventive legislation to see to it that that did not happen; that lawyers were required to warn companies 30 days in advance; that information was required to be shared; that, in fact, there was a cap on punitive damages; and that grants and loans were made available for small businesses. So both in the private sector and in the public sector, the Congress did its job. That is the point I want to make. It was a nonevent, but both the legislative and the executive branch deserve a great deal of credit for the fact that it was a nonevent both here in the United States and worldwide. It would not have happened had it not been for the leadership on both sides of the aisle, and they deserve congratulations, as does the Federal workforce and Mr. Koskinen.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I think we know what this budget resolution conference report is all about. The majority wants to provide the Republican presidential candidate with a budget that he can work with, and that is fine. I read on the front page of the Washington Post today that Presidential Candidate George Bush has recommended another $46 billion of spending this week alone, $13 billion more for education, $25 billion more for defense, and then, of course, he wants a tax cut of over one and a half trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Well, that is great. We are all for many of those things. But the thing that troubles us the most is that we have what may be a once in a lifetime opportunity to do right by our children's generation. We have an unprecedented surplus ahead of us. Is it right to use that surplus for our own benefit, or is it better to use that surplus to pay off the debt that we incurred so our children do not have to pay it off and so our children do not have to pay the quarter of a trillion dollars in interest costs that are due every year. And those interest costs will be a lot more when they are our age. We are the ones who had the benefit of running up that enormous deficit during the 1980s. We now have the responsibility to pay it off. First things first. Pay off the $3.7 trillion of our public debt so that our children are not burdened with that debt. Second thing, provide for our own retirement, provide for our Social Security and Medicare. That is our second responsibility. Do not leave it to them to have to provide for our retirement and our health care when we are no longer working and doing so well. How wrong a legacy to leave the public debt to our children's generation, to leave it to them to pay for Social Security and Medicare. How right to pay off our debt now, to provide for our own retirement, and, to the extent we can, target tax cuts where they will benefit the economy, where Allan Greenspan will not have to raise interest rates to offset their stimulus effect. Target them and then invest in the next generation in education, prescription drugs research and development, and infrastructure. That is what we should be doing. That should be our legacy for our children. This conference report does not accomplish that legacy. Let us do the right thing, the responsible thing. Reject this selfish, short term budget policy. We can do better than this. Much better.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today I commemorate April as the Child Abuse Prevention month and to inform my colleagues of a quiet but devastating situation that continues to plague our nation: that of child abuse and neglect. In this time of prosperity we are leaving needy children behind. More than 1 million children are reported abused and neglected in this country each year. This is an amazing statistic, especially when most cases of neglect and abuse are not reported. In Virginia, according to the American Humane Association's Children Division in 1997, there were 11,792 confirmed reports of maltreatment to children. The situation, as it exists right now, simply cannot go on. These children need and deserve our help, and Congress can and must step in if we are to begin to better tackle this public health epidemic and national tragedy. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support vital federal programs that seek to address this problem through improved preventive and early intervention services. The effects of child abuse are felt by communities as a whole and need to be addressed by the entire community. All citizens should become more aware of the negative effects of child abuse and its prevention within the community. All citizens should become involved in supporting vulnerable and at risk parents to raise their children in a safe nurturing environment. This is why it is important to recognize April as Child Abuse Prevention Month. All citizens, community agencies, religious organizations, medical facilities, and businesses should increase their participation in our efforts to prevent child abuse, thereby strengthening the communities in which we live. Child maltreatment has ramifications far beyond the actual physical and psychological harm done to the child. It also affects school readiness, juvenile crime and poor health outcomes. We simply must do more. Mr. Speaker, I hope that I can count on my colleagues to recognize this month as Child Abuse Prevention Month and give strong support of these and other measures so that we can seek to put an end to what can only be called a national epidemic.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1776, the American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act. Our nation is currently enjoying its highest homeownership rate--66.8 percent. A significant cause of this achievement is the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which has created record budget surpluses, lower interest and mortgage rates, seven years of robust economic growth, and record levels of consumer confidence. Although great strides have been made to encourage homeownership, we must do more to advance the availability of affordable housing. H.R. 1776 reauthorizes the Community Development Block Grant and the HOME Investment Partnership Programs, both of which help localities provide affordable housing. This bill provides local governments the flexibility necessary to use federal funds to assist school teachers, police officers, firefighters and municipal employees to buy homes in the communities in which they work. I have been a strong supporter of the creation of mixed-income communities. I support passage of H.R. 1776 which will provide localities the flexibility they need to use community development block grant programs to leverage public funds with private sources of capital. Local government officials must have access to the mechanisms necessary to generate resources that will allow them to create homeownership programs tailored to the specific needs of each locality. Passage of this bill will only enhance existing efforts to create safe and affordable housing for the citizens of Virginia's 8th district. Other provisions of H.R. 1776 that I believe are crucial to improving homeownership in our country include: A pilot program will be established to give Public Housing Authorities flexibility in allowing families to use Section 8 subsidies toward the purchase of a home. An identical program will be created to assist families with one or more members who are disabled. Authorization of grants for ``homeownership zones,'' which are large scale development projects in distressed neighborhoods. Substantial strides have been made in providing the opportunity for all Americans to achieve homeownership. While more people than ever before own their homes, there is still much work to be done toward ensuring that the opportunity to share the dream is equally available to everyone. Passage of H.R. 1776 brings us one step closer to making these dreams a reality.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, there are two groups I want to talk about. It is easy to beat up on Federal employees. After all, we are their bosses and they really cannot fight back. And maybe that is why they have had to contribute over $200 billion in the last few years toward deficit reduction. But at 3 a.m. last night, it was decided to require Federal employees to pay another $1.2 billion toward their retirement costs. But worse than the way we treat Federal employees is the way we treat military retirees in this bill. It is wrong. We have brochures that are as current as 1991 that promise free lifetime quality health care if they will contribute 20 years of their life serving their country, defending their country. And they took that promise. And now when they turn 65, they are out in the cold, no health care coverage, they get at the back of the line. Well, the Democratic budget brings them in from the cold, provides full Medicare coverage, provides the same kind of prescription drug coverage that we provide enlisted personnel and their families. I have got to tell my colleagues, if they vote for the Republican budget, they had better be willing to look in the face of our military retirees and explain why a politically appealing tax cut was more important than keeping their promise to them.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, you will recall that two years ago this House failed to adopt a concurrent budget resolution. It was the first time in the 26-year history of the Budget Act that Congress failed to adopt a budget. It disrupted the appropriations process and made it much more difficult for the entire House to complete any of its legislative business in an orderly way. Then again last year we adopted a budget but it was an unrealistic budget. It was shot full of holes with gimmicks and blue smoke and mirrors. It treated things like the decennial census, that has been going on since 1790, as an emergency. We did not complete action on the appropriations bills until well after the fiscal year had begun. We failed the American people again. Now again this budget resolution is equally unrealistic. It is so filled with assumptions that we know will not be met that it is not fair to the American people to even propose it, never mind pass it, on the floor of the House. We know it is not a real budget. We know that what this is is not serious legislation, but political expediency. We would probably be better off doing what we did in 1998 without a budget resolution; whether it be the Republican leadership budget or the CATs budget, which are not all that substantively different. These Republican budgets start with the wholly unrealistic assumption that we will be able to hold non-defense discretionary outlays to $114 billion below inflation over the next 5 years. That is not going to happen. Next year alone, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) suggested, we will have to cut nearly $20 billion below the level needed just to keep level with inflation. Yet we know that the Congress has increased non-defense appropriations faster than inflation every year since 1996. Who are we kidding? If we were honest with the American people, we would admit that we have no intention of cutting Federal law enforcement or education or environmental programs, or veterans care. You name it, we are not going to cut it. We are going to do what our constituents demand that we do, and at least keep these programs level with inflation. Who are we kidding? Ourselves? Why are we proposing a budget that we know we are not going to hold to? Maybe we are planning on putting all this money into the supplemental, hiding it, shifting it from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2000. Maybe that will be this year's gimmick. But it is not right to the American people to be deceiving them in this way. The main problem is that to accommodate a tax cut in the range of $200 billion, whether it be the Republican leadership budget or the CATs budget, we know that we are putting in place a situation where we are going to be cutting revenue by almost $1 trillion over 10 years. Those tax cuts are not fair. They are not fair to the American people. But, most importantly, they are not fair to our children. We have an opportunity today to pay off the debt that we incurred in the 1980s, to pay down that debt, to eliminate that debt by the year 2013. As well as the quarter of a trillion dollars in interest we have to pay every year on that debt. If we do not, our children have to pay off that debt. What could be more immoral than to pass that debt on to our children? What could be worse than to say to our children that they are going to have to pay for our retirement and our health care when we retire? We would not do that to our own children. Let us not do it to America's children. Oppose this budget.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I know this bill is going to pass, and I understand that politics is the art of compromise, but this should not be the body of broken promises. Back in 1986, Congress made an iron-clad commitment that it would never increase the number of slots at Washington National Airport and it would never break the perimeter rule of 1,250 miles beyond Washington National Airport. Yet today we break that promise. The Washington region, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia fulfilled its part of the bargain. It said we will fund the airports and be responsible for their administration and redevelopment. We fulfilled our part of the bargain, and now Congress breaks its part of the bargain. It is wrong. I know what happened, I know the guy that is responsible. But it is irresponsible for us to do this. We ought not set a tradition of breaking promises. Our word ought to be good. We had an iron-clad agreement. This breaks that agreement by adding 24 more slots, 12 of them beyond the perimeter rule. Those slots should be at Dulles Airport, not at National Airport, and that is why I have to vote against this bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank again my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), for yielding me the time and for his leadership in the Congress. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this legislation to rename the central post office in Arlington County after the late Joe Fisher, who so ably represented Virginia's old 10th District between 1974 and 1980. I want to commend my good friend and distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who now represents the new 10th District of Virginia, for his leadership on this bill, as well as the prior bill with regard to Mr. Broyhill. Joe Fisher was one of the finest men I ever knew. I am proud to stand on his inspirational shoulders today. He was extraordinarily intelligent, holding a doctorate from Harvard in economics. He was a man of unquestioned integrity and genuine humility. He worked hard and purposefully, and he understood our responsibility to the future, particularly in the area of environmental preservation. Many young people who are active in Government service and public service today got their start working for and observing Congressman Joe Fisher. During his service here in the House, Joe was a leader on economic issues, tax reform, and economic policy. It is amazing to think that he was appointed to the Committee on Ways and Means in his very first term. The leadership of my party appointed Joe to head no less than seven task forces that helped to draft the Energy Policy Act of 1978. He was a founding member of the Environmental Study Conference that provided a bicameral forum in which to examine our Nation's environmental policies. And he was a strong voice for Federal workers in Northern Virginia, as well as for people in need throughout the country. After leaving this body in 1980, Joe continued his public service as Secretary of Human Resources in the administration of then Governor Chuck Robb. He, in fact, had the unenviable task during that period of time when we had a recession in the State of administering Virginia's AFDC and Medicaid programs. But he had a heart that was as expansive as his mind. And throughout his tenure, he earned a reputation for being fair minded, even handed, and extraordinarily effective. When he left Richmond, he continued serving the public as a professor at George Mason University, which is a post he held until he passed away at the age of 78. He has left a legacy in Northern Virginia particularly, but in this country generally. With regard to Northern Virginia, I think it is fair to say that he was instrumental in transforming Northern Virginia from what had at one time been a segregated, insular suburb to a progressive and inclusively caring community. That probably would have happened without Joe Fisher, but it happened sooner and more profoundly because of Joe Fisher. Beyond his service to Virginia and this Nation, those of us who knew Joe Fisher came to appreciate the renaissance character of his personality and intellect. He was an avid sportsman and hiker. He was a national leader of the Unitarian Church. But first and foremost, he was a devoted husband and father to his wife Peggy and their seven children. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to support this bill to honor the lifetime of public service that Joe Fisher provided our country. Again, I commend my good friend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for his leadership on it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah). Mr. Speaker, it is entirely appropriate that we name the central post office facility in Merrifield, Virginia, after Joel Broyhill. Mr. Broyhill served Arlington County and Fairfax County and Northern Virginia extraordinarily well during his long public career. It was a transitional period during those days and Mr. Broyhill earned a reputation for excellent service to his constituency, particularly Federal workers. A native of Hopewell, Virginia, this distinguished gentleman attended public schools, graduated from Fork Union Military Academy, and then, upon completion of his studies at George Washington University, enlisted in the Army. The gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) have described his courage and valor. He escaped the German forces after the Battle of the Bulge and then rejoined advancing American forces. After his distinguished career in the military ended, he did not end his public service. After concluding his military career, he resumed real estate pursuits but then ran for Congress. His base was his long service with the Arlington County Chamber of Congress, the County Planning Commission in Arlington, and then served for 22 years in the United States Congress. He was a vigilant advocate for Federal workers. He served his country well. As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has said, he was credited with always voting his conscience. It is entirely appropriate, Mr. Speaker, that we recognize his commitment and devotion to public service by naming this central post office in his honor.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to William C. Coonce--one of our Federal Government's finest public servants and a long time resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia. This April he will retire from an exceptionally distinguished career of service to his country. He has worked for the Department of Defense since 1967, first with the Navy, and for the last 19 years with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). He has served more than 34 years of exemplary service to our nation. He has been an exceptional manager of the public's resources and his efforts have strengthened our national defense. It gives me pride to have the opportunity to honor him today for his tremendous accomplishments. Mr. Coonce began his career at the Naval Ordnance Depot in Louisville, Kentucky as an engineer working on underwater sensors and weapons. He moved to the great Commonwealth of Virginia in 1971 to work for the Naval Sea Systems Command and later for the Comptroller of the Navy on important budget issues. He was promoted to work for the Defense Comptroller, first as a budget analyst and, for the last sixteen years, to the Senior Executive Service, where he served as the Director for Military Construction and later Director for Revolving Funds. The quality of his work has been recognized by every Administration he has served, and he has received civil service awards too numerous to mention. Among the more significant, he has received the Presidential Rank Award for Meritorious Service, the Secretary of Defense Medal for Meritorious Civilian Service, and the Vice President's National Performance Review Award. Bill Coonce has served six Secretaries of Defense and six Department Comptrollers, as their key advisor on a range of budget issues. His recommendations on a wide range of vital issues were constantly sought and greatly helped the Department robustly defend the funding requirements that support U.S. forces and missions. He has a significant reputation as a budget-cutter across a wide range of national programs. Year in and year out, his wise counsel and sound advice produced the best possible, yet fiscally responsible, spending plans to satisfy the nation's national security needs. Mr. Coonce brought exceptional insight and skill to the many diverse challenges presented to and undertaken by him. He displayed outstanding skills as a manager of budget analysts, inspiring work that was of the highest quality. He has been the Department of Defense's expert in budgeting for Military Construction, Base Realignment and Closure actions, Intelligence Community requirements, and the logistics infrastructure programs. On an extraordinary number of occasions, his sage advice assured the adoption of sound spending decisions that supported major Defense programs while remaining consistent with the President's priorities and prevailing perspectives in the Congress. His comprehensive knowledge and exceptional skills were immensely invaluable to a whole generation of Department of Defense leaders, to our Armed Forces, and to U.S. national security. The senior U.S. leaders, both in the Congress and in the Defense Department, benefited enormously from his extensive knowledge, exceptional dedication, and wise judgment. His contributions and public service allowed the leaders of our nation to make the wisest possible allocation of declining defense resources while maintaining America's security. Mr. Coonce is retiring from a career of singular merit and has earned the profound gratitude of the American people.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, it is my distinct honor to introduce this morning's guest chaplain, the Reverend Joseph S. Edmonds. Actually, it is not morning. It is now afternoon. Reverend Edmonds serves as pastor of the First Baptist Church of Ballston in Arlington, which is just across the Potomac, in the 8th District of Virginia. Madam Speaker, Reverend Edmonds was born in Grenta, Virginia, spent his childhood in the District of Columbia, not far from this very building. After attending public school in D.C., Reverend Edmonds obtained his undergraduate degree from Carson-Newman College in Tennessee and earned a Masters of Divinity at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in North Carolina. Reverend Edmonds has been serving the Ballston community for over 10 years. He has been, and continues to be, a true shepherd to his congregation. Many have benefited from his spiritual guidance and generous spirit. Before moving to the Ballston area, Reverend Edmonds served communities in Maryland, D.C., and Florida. On behalf of our district, I am pleased to welcome Reverend Edmonds here today.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), an ardent leader of the full committee, that the purpose of the amendment was to address what was in the statement of administration policy, and I think the amendment does that. In terms of private rights of action, I suspect that may be addressed in conference and in the Senate as well, but I can understand the gentleman's concerns. I just do not necessarily share them as strongly as the gentleman does.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2366 in my mind is a focused, tightly-crafted bill that will reduce unnecessary litigation and legal costs. It is careful not to overreach, and as such, gives us the opportunity to respond on a bipartisan basis to the concerns we have been hearing year after year from smaller employers about our civil justice system. For the smallest of the Nation's businesses, those with less than 25 employees, Title I will abolish joint liability for noneconomic damages and to limit punitive damages. States may elect to opt out and instead apply their own joint liability and punitive damages rules in cases brought in State court when the parties are all citizens of the same State. Further, these provisions do not apply to civil cases that may arise from certain violations of criminal law or egregious misconduct. Today our smallest enterprises operate in fear that they will be named as a defendant in a lawsuit, be found minimally responsible for the claimant's harm, but be maximally crushed under the weight of all the damages as a result of the application of joint or deep pockets liability. Most States have recognized the inequity of the unfettered application of joint liability and have acted to abolish or restrain it in some way. The Small Business Liability Reform Act adopts a fair, balanced approach by limiting the noneconomic damages exposure of a small business defendant to its own proportionate share. Similarly, the owners and employees of a very small commercial enterprise know their business could be destroyed by the legal costs associated with simply defending against a civil action in a jurisdiction where punitive damages are unrestrained. Rather than face that prospect, small business defendants are coerced into inflated settlements of marginal, sometimes even meritless, lawsuits. Title II holds non-manufacturer product sellers, lessors, and renters liable for their own negligence and intentional wrongdoing, but it only holds them responsible for the supplier manufacturer's liability when that manufacturer is judgment-proof. This policy has been a noncontroversial part of Federal product liability legislation since the Carter administration published the model Uniform Product Liability Act 21 years ago. Most recently, the product seller liability standard in title II was included in the 1998 product liability compromise that President Clinton had agreed to sign. This provision will reduce the exposure of retailers and distributors to meritless product liability claims and unnecessary costs, while meticulously preserving the ability of injured persons to recover their full damages. Mr. Chairman, this modest but meaningful legislation will improve the administration of civil justice in the United States, and I urge my colleagues to support it. The amendment that I am offering today addresses the legitimate concerns raised by the White House in their statement of administration policy. The administration is concerned that without a specific definition of punitive damages, provisions of the bill may be read to cap the government's ability to impose civil penalties, civil fines, or treble damages, all of which are punitive in purpose. This amendment would define ``punitive damages'' in the bill as damages awarded against any person or entity to punish or deter such person, entity, or others from engaging in similar behavior in the future. That is the purpose of punitive damages. The amendment also makes clear that punitive damages, as defined in the bill, will not include any civil penalties, fines, or treble damages that are assessed or enforced by an agency of State or Federal Government pursuant to a State or Federal statute. I can tell the Members, as an original cosponsor of the underlying legislation, none of the sponsors of this legislation intended for the bill to include such actions. I do applaud the administration for suggesting the clarifying language in this amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order by the rule.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for his remarks, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the distinguished member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this legislation and the critical investment that it makes in the future of information technology research. At a time when our Nation is enjoying unlimited economic growth and prosperity, we should use this opportunity to invest in scientific research and development, especially in the area of information technology. This legislation would authorize $3 billion for the National Science Foundation over the next 5 years, of which nearly two-thirds of this funding would be designated for long-term, basic research grants to support research on a variety of IT projects. The authorization represents a 92 percent increase in information technology funding, which is a badly needed boost in a field that really has been defining our economy. We can attribute much of our economic prosperity today to the Federal investments we made in the National Science Foundation and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in terms of their development of the Internet. That research investment was basic and has given us a multi- fold return, more return than we can calculate or imagine, really, in addition to the other basic research programs that are taken for granted but really fuel the engine of growth for America's economy. Who would have thought that such an investment in DOD and the National Science Foundation would have permeated every sector of our economy and our way of life, but they have. The National Science Foundation has been performing amazing work toward establishing the next generation Internet, as well as fostering the pursuit of science, math, engineering, and other technical sciences in this country. So by investing in R&D and these programs today, we are investing in our future economic potential as a Nation. Unless we increase the flat budgets which basic research has experienced in the past several years, we cannot expect to continue to yield the kind of scientific advances that will ensure that the United States remains at the forefront of our global economy. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2086 and to support these critical investments in information technology research. I also urge my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations to support the necessary funding in the fiscal year 2001 bills to carry out the activities of this legislation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 76, recognizing the social problem of child abuse and neglect, and supporting efforts to enhance public awareness of it. Through the efforts of Childhelp USA, a ``Day of Hope'' will be observed on the first Wednesday in April to focus public awareness on this social ill. Childhelp USA has been coming to the rescue of children in distress since 1959. It is one of America's oldest and largest organizations dedicated to the prevention and treatment of child abuse. Childhelp's many excellent programs help keep children safe. Childhelp training programs instruct adults who work with children on how to recognize the signs and symptoms of abuse, how to respond to a child who discloses abuse and how to interrupt a suspected abuse situation. Childhelp Abuse Prevention instructors teach school children the knowledge and skills they need to prevent or interrupt abuse. This organization provides a 24-hour National Child Abuse Hotline, which delivers free, high quality professional counseling services to children and families in crisis and connects them with social service and law enforcement agencies in their community. Child Advocacy Centers have implemented programs that work with law enforcement and child protective services to investigate abuse reports in a manner that avoids further trauma to the victim. Childhelp Head Start classes provides early enrichment for at-risk children and parenting education for their mothers and fathers. The Villages of Childhelp and Childhelp therapeutic foster homes provide the finest available residential care and treatment for victims of severe abuse. There is an epidemic of violence against children in America. The direct and collateral damage to the individual and the community is vast. A problem this large will end only when everyone does something to help. I commend Childhelp USA for all that it does for America's children and families, and for it superior model of service in the 8th district of VA, and throughout the country.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a truly remarkable American, Vola Lawson, who will be retiring on March 1st. For 30 years Vola has been a beacon of dedication to public service. She has been my mentor, my heroine, and my inspiration. To say that Vola will be missed understates her far-reaching presence throughout the entire metropolitan Washington area. Her 30-year career in public service has been unparalleled in its effectiveness. Vola entered public life as a civil rights activist in the 1960s and then in 1971 became assistant director of the Alexandria Economic Opportunities Commission. Her efforts as the chairperson of the Alexandria Ad Hoc Committee on Women in 1973 led to the establishment of the Alexandria Commission on Women. She is widely recognized for her efforts promoting diversity in the city government's workforce. As the assistant manager for housing in 1975, Vola initiated more than $100 million in low-income and senior citizen housing projects. For the past 15 years, Vola has shared the distinction of being only one of three women to hold the city manager position in cities with more than 100,000. There are only three women, and she is one of those three women. I do not know the others, but I would venture to say there is no one as capable as Vola. As city manager, she has overseen a budget of more than $360 million and supervised almost 2,000 people. I would also suggest that she knows every one of them and their families and cares about each and every one of them deeply, and that caring is reciprocal. Due to Vola's financial acumen, Alexandria enjoys a AAA credit rating, an honor shared by just 22 cities nationwide, which was first garnered by the city in 1986. In 1992, the city's creditworthiness was upgraded once again, and Alexandria now is one of only 10 cities in the country to hold a AAA credit rating. That is through her substantial efforts and the people that work with her and for her, as well as the Alexandria city council. It is something to be very proud of, and that is the balance between a caring, progressive manager and one that is fiscally responsible. But she is more than a sharp and capable city manager. A breast cancer survivor, she turned her personal health crisis into a public crusade. She initiated Alexandria's annual breast cancer walk to raise funds to provide free breast cancer screening for low-income women. Over the years, Vola has been the recipient of countless honors and awards and citations. Most recently, Washingtonian Magazine named Vola a Washingtonian of the Year for 1999, and she was inducted into Virginia's Women's Hall of Fame in 1993. I count myself among those who have been very privileged and honored to have served with Vola in the Alexandria city government. She is a great friend. Her legacy of compassion, her dedication, and her fortitude will long be associated with the city of Alexandria and public service in general. She has enhanced the entire profession. She will be remembered for that, as well as her humor and her uncanny ability to get to the heart of seemingly byzantine issues. The city of Alexandria and I will miss Vola. I am sure her retirement presents more opportunities for her to have an even greater and more positive impact upon the lives of Alexandrians and all of those throughout the metropolitan Washington community. She is a very, very special person. I wish there were more people like her. I wish she was not retiring, but I am happy for her, as she deserves a little rest and a lot more appreciation. She is wonderful, and I am proud to have this opportunity to say a few words about her on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the problem is there is no surplus. Even though CBO has projected a $1.9 trillion surplus over the next 10 years, they made false assumptions in coming up with that surplus. For example, if we project the current level of appropriations and only increase by the rate of inflation, not assuming population changes or any attempt to improve quality of life of the American people, then more than a trillion dollars is going to be used up in meeting just the need to increase by inflation. It does not assume that we will sustain any of the tax extenders. Obviously, we are going to do that. It does not assume that we will fix the alternative minimum tax. If we do not do that by 2009, we are going to have more than 15 million people paying the alternative minimum taxes. It is going to reach down to people with incomes below $50,000 a year. That has to be fixed. It is going to cost as much as $230 billion just to sustain the kind of rational tax cuts that are necessary. We want the marriage penalty fixed but not when half of the people that are benefited are now getting a marriage bonus. Because they get married, they pay less taxes. Half of the money in today's bill that is being marked up would go to those families. That is not of the best use of our resources.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation and applaud the gentlemen from California (Mr. Condit) and New York (Mr. Reynolds) for their work on this issue. My own involvement on the unfunded mandate issue began more than five years ago. Our efforts were successful. As one of the first acts of the 104th Congress, we passed the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. We all should all be held accountable for legislation we support regardless of whether it imposes a cost on the public or private sector. The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act gives us this accountability for legislation that affects state and local governments. Today, the legislation provides a technical fix on the issue of state-administered entitlement programs like food stamps, TANF, and Medicaid. The fix is necessary because the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has determined that any new entitlement program mandates is exempt from the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act if there is sufficient flexibility within the entitlement program to offset the new mandate's new state and local costs. For example, on June 10, 1996, CBO ruled that a point-of-order would not exist for a proposed cap on federal Medicaid contributions and any other mandatory federal aid programs except food stamps. The effect of this interpretation was to exempt more than two-thirds of all grant-in-aid, the mandatory entitlement program, from coverage under the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. What may appear to be an optional federal mandate program from CBO's perspective, such as, expanded Medicaid coverage to pregnant women and children, is not an optional program from the states' perspective. I know of no state willing or reduce Medicaid coverage to pregnant women and children to help offset the cost of a new federal mandate. The legislation would correct this interpretation problem by adding a few simple words to the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act to clarify that any cut or cap of safety net programs constitutes an intergovernmental mandate unless state and local governments are given new or additional flexibility and the authority to offset the cut or cap. This provision has been endorsed by the five major state and local organizations. I urge you to vote for this legislation.