Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Chaplain Jim Ford is a good man. In God's eyes, he is undoubtedly a great man. Humble of personality but proud of faith and strong of intellect and spirit, he has given us all an example of how life should and can be lived. Gandhi said that your life is your message and Jim Ford's service is his statement of faith. We thank you, Jim, for what you have meant to all of us individually and collectively as an institution.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I am also an original sponsor of this amendment because it clarifies the consumer protections in H.R. 1714. I have been wanting to respond to my friend, the gentleman from California, not because I take issue with his characterization of my remarks as New Democrat in nature, but because he said that I am supporting this bill because it is new and exciting. That is not why I am supporting this bill. It is because it is responsible and needed. The fact is that this bill provides a consistent and predictable national framework of rules governing the use of electronic signatures. This bill is needed. This bill was and is bipartisan. When the final vote is taken, it will be apparent that it is bipartisan. In fact the vote will be lopsided because it provides consumers and companies doing business on the Internet the legal certainty they need for electronic signatures, until all 50 States pass their own legislation on the legality of electronic signatures. This amendment is important because it clarifies the consumer protections that were originally inlcuded in this bill. It makes it clear, as the prior speakers have said, that consumers are not required to use or accept electronic records or electronic signatures. There has to be mutual consent, and it expands the bill's requirement that consumers be able to receive and retain electronic records. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is important because it says that opportunity for consent must be conspicuous and visually separate from all the other terms. In addition, the consumer must be provided with an explanation of how to access and retain electronic records. Records will be received, retained, and printed. The fact is that consumers are going to be protected, but most importantly, they are going to have a choice. Today they do not have that uniformity, that predictability that comes with uniform national standards. The Internet is national in nature. Our constituents need this legislation. Make it bipartisan and make it an expression of our unequivocal support for this productive, prosperous new economy.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about the digital divide. And certainly one exists between those school systems and communities who can afford to be wired and those who cannot. But there is also a digital divide in the Congress. It is between those who understand the new economy and what constructive role we can play in it and those who are afraid of it and feel the need to protect us from it. The people who are using the Internet with their computers around the country tend to be more confident of themselves than we are of them and their ability to use the New Economy to their advantage. They, in many ways, are more knowledgeable than we are about the role that computers can play in making their lives easier and more productive. They certainly want to be empowered to have the choice of whether or not they will use their computer to maximum advantage because they are far more interested in opportunity than in security. In fact, when they were recently asked in a survey what was more important to them, opportunity or security, they saw opportunity overwhelmingly as more important to them. They wanted to be able to protect themselves, certainly, but they feel empowered to do that on their own. . The fact is that the consumers that will be affected by this bill will be empowered, will be advantaged by this legislation. It is not just companies who will be able to operate more efficiently. It is consumers who want the ability to use their computers, to use the Internet in the most efficient and effective and legal, manner possible. The fact is that in this bill consumers who will be using e-commerce, digitized signatures, have the opportunity to affirmatively and separately consent prior to receiving their notices electronically. It ensures that existing consumer protection laws that are in place today are maintained. The fact is that we build upon the laws that exist today. This is going to come. It can either come with the support, the encouragement, the empowerment by the Congress, or it can come despite the Congress. We ought to work for and with the new economy, not in opposition to its culture and its opportunities. My comments are really directed to my own party because I know that the opposition is well intentioned; and it is thoughtful and it is knowledgeable. But it is wrong and shortsighted. The reality is that what we are debating is already happening today. Digitized signatures work. People find them to be not only easier to use but, in fact, entirely consistent with the economy in which they are operating. This will show that the Congress can be ahead of the curve, that Congress can play a constructive role, that the Congress can be leading instead of impeding. Instead of always trying to play catch-up like we had to do with the Financial Services Modernization Act. Look to the consumers who are using the Internet. They are asking for this ability to use digitized signatures. This is what the new economy is all about. This is why we are so prosperous. We ought to be part of this progress by contributing to it and certainly not oppose thoughtful legislation like this.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, General McNamara was the first Director of Defense Supply Agency (DSA, now DLA), 1961-1963. As Director, he distinguished himself as an innovator in developing ways to support the troops at the least cost to the taxpayer. His efforts in standardizing DSA managed items earned him the First Oak Leaf Cluster to the Distinguished Service Medal for exceptionally meritorious service for his leadership as Agency Head. He established a Cost Reduction Program to prove that DSA could maintain effective supply support to the Armed Forces at less cost to the taxpayer. In FY63, the program saved $61.8M in direct cost and approximately an additional $261M in inventory draw down. That program laid the groundwork for DLA's current better, faster, lower cost logistics solutions. He was instrumental in introducing a wholesale distribution system for assigned supplies which provided an integrated network of distribution facilities for all DSA commodities to be operated under uniform procedures, the basics of which are still used today. He established the Logistics Readiness Center (LRC) during the Cuban crisis, which provided an overall focal point with the Agency for efficient, economical, and responsive support of the Military Services and unified commands emergency and contingency operations. Today, the LRC is an integral part of DLA's emergency operations and played a vital role in supporting the efforts in Bosnia, Desert Storm, and Haiti. Other awards: Legion of Merit (England) for exceptional service in providing Quartermaster supplies to U.S. forces in Tunisia and for adapting Quartermaster transportation facilities to move troops and ammunition. Bronze Star Medal for his part in planning the invasion of Normandy. Distinguished Service Medal for directing Quartermaster operations of the First Army during its drive across France, Belgium and Germany. At 94 years old, renaming the HQ Complex in his honor would be a living tribute to someone who has distinguished himself as a pioneer in Defense supply management as well as a distinguished member of the Armed Forces.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me suggest to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) that he may want to have his other speakers. We have restricted the number of speakers on our side out of deference for the rest of the Congress' schedule. So if he wants to have his speakers first, I will just speak when they are concluded, and he can wrap it up.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is such a shame. We have a good bill here. The District of Columbia is on its feet. They have got good leadership; responsible leadership. They have a budget that everybody agreed to, that has tax cuts in it, and generates a surplus. We provided what money we had under our discretion in a way that met their priorities. This bill should have been signed long before the fiscal year began. And, in fact, the gentleman from Oklahoma may recall that the bill that we got out of the House Committee on Appropriations was agreed to unanimously, I think. And then we got to the House floor and it passed overwhelmingly with the support of the delegate from the District of Columbia, with the support of the ranking member, myself, and with the support of the leadership of both parties. The bill should have been enacted by now. But then we get into conference and we get into mischief. We get into social riders, ``gotcha'' types of legislation. So we used D.C. for political purposes. So the bill was vetoed. That is why the bill was vetoed, because it was used as a political vehicle instead of an appropriations bill. Then we get it back, and what happens but that the Senate made changes that made the bill itself acceptable, but then they added the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill to it, plus an across-the-board spending cut. Again, the poor little D.C. bill gets crushed under these controversial measures. That was not right; it was not fair. Now we have the bill before us that we should all agree on, it has been pulled back from the across-the-board cut and the Labor-HHS bill, but we have gone back and reinserted language that the House Committee on Appropriations, in a bipartisan fashion, rejected. We have reinserted language that was rejected on the House floor, that was rejected by the Senate conferees. The Senate conferees took this language out, and we are going to put it back? Now, maybe we are playing gamesmanship here again. Well, send it back to the Senate and the Senate will take it out again. But if that is what we are doing, it is wrong. There is no good reason to be doing it. Let me try to explain what this particular issue is all about and why the White House and others feel strongly. Number one, it is an issue of home rule. That is the underlying issue before us. The gentleman from Kansas put this rider in. The gentleman from Kansas must be very well aware that Topeka, Kansas, has exactly the very same program that the District of Columbia wants to have. Kansas gets Federal funds, State funds, and uses its local funds for this needle exchange program. The gentleman has never attempted to deny Kansas its right to make that decision. Why does Kansas do it? Not because they want to increase the drug abuse, obviously; not because they want to make it easier to engage in destructive acts. They do it because they need access to drug addicts so that they can cure them. And that is what this program is all about, it is gaining access to people in need. That is why the Whitman-Walker Clinic did it. They decided to do it after the American Medical Association endorsed it, after the American Pharmaceutical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association, the Council of State and Territorial Health Officers, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of County and City Health Officials endorsed it; and I could go down a long, long list. They have all looked at this program, and they have decided that we have a very serious problem across the country and this may be working. Why did Whitman-Walker particularly do it? Because D.C. has the worst problem, 75 percent of the babies born with HIV. How horrible a thing for a baby to be born with the HIV infection, infected as a result of the use of dirty needles. Three out of four of these babies have no chance, born because of dirty needles. They are trying to stop that. The District of Columbia has the worst AIDS epidemic. Deaths attributed to AIDS in D.C. is more than seven times the national average. Let me repeat that. Deaths attributed to AIDS in the District of Columbia is more than seven times the national average. AIDS is the leading cause of death for city residents between the ages of 30 and 44. A serious problem. I do not know the best way to address the problem, but I sure know that it is a serious problem that we ought to care about. And what this program does, we are told by experts who are working in the field, is that it gives them an opportunity to identify people who are addicted and get them into drug treatment and counseling. And now we come along with this amendment that says that if this clinic offers these needles, which needles cost nothing, with private funds it would cost pennies to provide the program itself; but if Whitman-Walker even engages in this, we will not let them, according to the letter of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) to Mrs. Rivlin, we will not let Whitman- Walker, which is the principal organization in the city, a private nonprofit organization that addresses the AIDS epidemic, we will not let them get any Federal or District funds for any of their other programs; for their Ryan White money, for their NIH research grants; for their CDC grants. We will not let them get any of the local D.C. money if they participate in this program. We heard from the representative from Baltimore saying it works. It is working in Baltimore, even though they have a horrible situation. The statistics are terrible, but they were worse before they started the program. This program in the District of Columbia has reduced the incidence of transmission by 29 percent. Unbelievable progress. And here we come and say, no, we know better; cut it out. But the reason we are opposing it so strongly goes beyond this substantive issue itself. The reason we are opposing this so strongly is that we would not do this to Kansas. We would not do this to Topeka, Kansas. We would not do this to any city in Oklahoma. I would not allow the gentleman to do it to Virginia. We do not do this to any city across the country, even though 113 State and local organizations have this very same program. One hundred thirteen of them. We have never attempted to tell any of those cities or counties or States that we represent how to run their business, but we would do it to the District of Columbia; and we would hold hostage $429 million. We are talking here three millionths of the Federal budget, .000003 percent of the Federal budget, $429 million, which means nothing. It gets rounded in the Federal budget, yet it is critical to the District of Columbia. How could we hold that up, deny that money? We insist on imposing our attitudes, our cultural conservatism, our ideas, that we would not impose on people we directly represent; yet we impose them on the District of Columbia. That is what is so wrong. We should not be doing it. We passed legislation through the leadership of the Subcommittee on District of Columbia of the Committee on Government Reform, chaired by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), that said in the future D.C. is treated like any other community. They get their Federal grants and loans. We do not treat them like we would some kind of plantation that we were overseers over. D.C. has a right to be independent. D.C. has a right to rule itself. And that is what this issue is all about. If they decide that private, nonpublic money should be able to be used for a purpose that they think is necessary, then, gosh darn it, we ought to let them make at least that decision. To not allow them to make that decision is wrong, and that is why we oppose this bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for explaining that. That should be the closing comment, really. I offered an amendment in the House Committee on Appropriations that said no Federal or local funds can be used for needle exchange, and the Republicans and the Democrats on the House Committee on Appropriations agreed. We got it to the House floor, and the House on the floor agreed. We went to conference with the Senate, and the Senate agreed in the last conference. No public funds, leave that language as it is. Then, at least, we will show a modicum of respect to the citizens of the District. We will get this bill passed. We will let them use their own money, which they desperately need, over $4 billion of their own local property tax money which we are holding up. We will give them the $429 million of grants from the Federal Government. We will treat them like any other community that we represent directly that can vote for us. The President will sign it right away. And then we will have acted responsibly, at least with regard to the District of Columbia appropriations bill. But until we do, we have to urge this body to vote no. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 2891.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the problem with this rule is that it does not allow us to make a tiny, minuscule little change, but as little a change as it would be it would have profound consequences. We simply want to make it clear that a private, nonprofit organization in the District of Columbia can receive private funds and do with those private funds whatever they choose to do. In other words, treat that organization like we do every other private nonprofit organization. All we are asking for is that this bill be given what the full, entire House Committee on Appropriations approved; give us the bill that the full House of Representatives on this floor approved; give us the bill that the full Senate Committee on Appropriations, the full Senate itself approved; give us the bill that the conference between the House and Senate approved. One tiny little change would give us that bill. Then not only would we agree with this rule, we would agree with the bill. The bill would be sent over to the White House. It would be signed and that little $429 million, which is infinitesimal compared to our Federal budget, would then be able to be spent in the District of Columbia as its citizens deem appropriate. To them, it means the difference between a solvent government that can respond to the needs of its citizens and one that is kept hostage by the Congress of the United States. That is the problem with the rule. Let us act reasonably. Then we can both get together and do what is right in the interest of the citizens of the District of Columbia and in the public interest. Amendment In The Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Linder

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Virginia for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my very good friends from Massachusetts and Minnesota that I know their hearts are in the right place and they want to do what they consider to be the right thing for consumers. But I rise in support of this bill. A number of things have to be underscored. For one, the signature is only valid if it is done by mutual consent. Both parties have to agree. Number two, there is legal recourse in the event of any kind of fraudulent action. Number three, we have all the accountability that we have really under hard-cover signatures. Number four, it is already being done. So the real question is, do we act now ahead of the curve, or do we wait and play catch up just as we did with financial services modernization, which came more than 10 years after the entire financial services industry had already modernized. I remember when I was on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services a decade ago looking at the possibility for modernizing the financial services industry. We knew it was going to happen anyway and we should try to influence the process on the side of consumers. But, no, what we have done over the last 10 years is to stand in the way of what was considered modernization, and so the industry modernized itself. And now we finally have a financial services modernization bill after the fact. And that is what is going to happen with digitalized signatures. We can stay by the sidelines, watch it happen, and then after the fact ratify it as though we played a role. I think we could play a constructive role at the beginning by authorizing this legislation now. The fact is that we have now more than half of the households in every metropolitan area that are online. In Northern Virginia 60 percent of all the households are online. They are doing these transactions. They ought to be. They are legal. We ought to ratify it. We ought to be really in front instead of behind the curve. And that is why I support the bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding to me so that I can explain to him that I have no contributor who has ever asked me to support this legislation, just to clarify for the Record in response to your earlier implication.

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, who so ably represents the people of the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, the students of the District of Columbia are at a unique educational disadvantage today. They are the only students in the entire continental United States who do not have access to the State college and university system that every other American family is able to avail themselves of. I am not endorsing the concept of statehood, which would be perhaps one way to achieve that objective, although we would still then have to find the resources that would be necessary to build a comparable college system; but I am endorsing the notion that we should do everything we can to establish a level playing field for those students who grow up in the District of Columbia, and this legislation will accomplish that objective. There are some extraordinarily gifted young men and women in the District of Columbia, but we will never fully realize their potential until they have access to the excellence that our college and university systems are able to provide; and by expanding their access to the colleges and universities in Virginia and Maryland particularly, they will have that kind of opportunity which is bound to benefit all of us, our economy, our society. As the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) so well knows, those students, those young men and women are, in fact, going to enrich the campuses and the classrooms of the colleges and universities in Virginia, as the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) realizes that the same will happen in Maryland. We are doing ourselves a service with this legislation, and that is why the D.C. appropriation act includes $17 million to fund this authorization. This is a good idea. It will be one of the legacies that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) will be able to point to with pride, as I am sure his able assistants, Peter and Howard will as well, and John on the staff of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). It takes a lot of work, it takes a lot of commitment to get legislation through as quickly as this was, but this provides a true incentive so that we will see the real talent and potential of the young men and women of the District of Columbia fully realized. It is good legislation, and we should pass it unanimously.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the reason why I rise to speak with regard to Mr. Knisely is that I worked with Mr. Knisely a quarter of a century ago. Over the last 25 years, I have become older and fatter and grayer and uglier, but Mr. Knisely looks the same. He is just as sharp and keen of mind and quick of wit, and he is just as slim and good looking as he was then. But putting aside all the superficial things, the substantive thing is, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said, he is a consummate professional. I was on the Senate Committee on Appropriations staff during some very difficult times. And I know that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) remembers, and by the way, even then the personality and intellect of the gentleman from Wisconsin made him a larger-than-life presence on the Committee on Appropriations 25 years ago, but if it were not for Bob Knisely, a great many of the issues that we could not find our way out of never would have been resolved in a spirit of bipartisanship. He is a very professional staffer and a good person and this country owes him a deep debt of gratitude. Now with regard to the D.C. Appropriations Bill, Mr. Speaker, here we go again. I am not sure if we can remember how many times we have been on the House floor or in conference on just the D.C. appropriations bill. This little bill is about $6 billion, $429 million is all of the Federal funds involved, but certainly this should be the last time that we would have to bring the D.C. appropriations bill to the House floor because we have made great progress since the President's veto of the first D.C. appropriations conference report. Maybe it took a White House no to get all the parties into a room and discuss it seriously, earnestly. It certainly worked, if that is what it took. The chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), and the chairwoman, Senator Hutchison finally kept an open enough mind to find out what needed to be done, and so we reached an acceptable compromise. It took very few changes, as we had been saying all along, to reach that acceptable compromise. The compromise includes increasing the cap on special education attorney fees, eliminating the restriction on a private organization to be able to use private funds to carry out needle exchange programs, and allowing the District's Corporation Council to review and comment on its voting rights lawsuit without the use of Federal funds. I have to say if they had accepted these modest changes several months ago, showing proper respect and deference to the District's home rule, we would not be here today. If it had not been for a lot of politicizing and posturing, we could have and should have had this appropriations bill signed into law last July. For such a small appropriation of Federal funds, we had to have so much political rhetoric, $429 million is all the Federal money involved, and yet we are holding up $6.8 billion of the District's money. Because we changed things with the D.C. Revitalization Act, we treat the District as we would other States. We give them grants and contracts. We do not oversee them any more, or certainly we should not be, yet we are holding the District's budget hostage. They have a tax cut in it. They have a balanced budget and fiscal accountability in it. They have a terrific Mayor, better management now in so many key areas. They are doing everything that we had hoped that they might do; more importantly, that their citizens demanded that they do. They have a little surplus. They are all in agreement on their own budget, and yet we are holding up their $6.8 billion budget using as leverage this little $425 million of Federal funds, holding it hostage. It has been held hostage to a series of controversial social riders and restrictions on how the District can spend its own local property tax money and private money that is not even local public money. Those restrictions have not and would not be imposed on the constituents of any other Member of Congress, yet we impose them on the District of Columbia. But this compromise, as I say, removes several of the most objectionable riders, at least with regard to the needle exchange program, which is always a controversial issue. But free needle exchange operates as a gateway so that the Whitman-Walker private organization could get access to addicts who were in desperate need of drug treatment and counseling. By offering free needles, they got them into the program so that they could identify them and heal them. The District has the worst AIDS epidemic of any other urban areas. They desperately need to be able to do whatever it takes to address effectively that problem. But since we have taken so much time to do our most important job passing appropriations bills, this little D.C. bill, important really only to the residents of the District of Columbia because it holds hostage over $6 billion of their own money, is now held hostage to a grander political scheme. The Labor, Health, and Human Services Appropriations bill, a bill with $93 billion of Federal money, compared to $429 million in the D.C. bill is attached as an amendment along with a 1% across the board cut and thus ensures its veto. As a free-standing measure, we would support, in fact the entire subcommittee, Democrats and Republicans alike, would support this D.C. appropriations bill. We have always hailed it from an appropriations standpoint. It has always been a good appropriations bill. It is just these politicized, idealogical riders that sunk it. Now it is going to be crushed by the Labor-HHS bill and by the 1 percent across-the-board cut. That is not right. It is wrong. It should not have happened. And I urge a no vote because it did happen.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in great sadness to offer my sincere thanks to a man known as an outstanding example of a true leader among his colleagues in the Senate and indeed in life. Senator Chafee was known as an old-fashioned legislator. He took his job very seriously but he eschewed politics. He cared about public policy and doing his best for the people of this Nation, never cowing to the partisanship in which we so often becoming entangled. I knew him best as a modern man in the Senate, as the co-chair of the Congressional Prevention Coalition. As its co-chair, Senator Chafee worked to spread crucial health information to Members of the House and Senate so that they could spread the word to their constituents throughout the United States. That was just one of the many ways Senator Chafee reached across the aisle to make America a better place to live. We are all better people for his efforts. As the Washington Post said this morning, the Senate will be a lesser place without him. He will be sorely missed by us all.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I obviously have a bias on this issue. I represent a district that is the most wired in the country, which probably means it is the most wired in the world, with 59.9 percent of all the households in the northern Virginia area wired with the Internet. So, obviously, I do not want any taxation on Internet transactions. We know that ``wired communities'' are going to be at the cutting edge of the enormous growth of this industry. The resolution itself says that electronic commerce between businesses is going to grow to $1.3 trillion in another 3 years and that, in fact, the electronic retail sales are going to amount to about $108 billion. With 200 different nationalities with their own different sovereign forms of government, I cannot imagine how we could implement a bit tax. We do not want it. It is going to impede the progress of spreading information technology throughout the world. We do need to keep in mind, however, that this is still an open issue. Legislatively, it is still an open issue before us. There is only a moratorium on Internet taxation. There is a commission that we put together to address the long term issues surrounding internet taxation composed of businesses, States, localities and Federal officials, determining what we do about a couple of major problems. One of them is what do States and localities do when Internet, e-commerce, takes over from traditional retail commerce? What do they do with the loss of revenue? How do we make it up to our schools, our roads, our public safety, et cetera? They are currently dealing with that issue. The other issue is what do we do with the retail centers of activities in our cities and towns? If e-commerce is going to be the way that we normally purchase a product, it has profound implications for the physical centers of our communities across the country. We have to deal with those issues. Now, I am admitting a bias. I do not want taxation on any e-commerce, because that would be in the interest of my constituency. But we have also got to listen to the State and local officials who can see what is coming from places that, while they may be wired, are desperately in need of the tax revenue from retail transactions that will be made uncompetitive if our economy goes the way of e-commerce. It is far more convenient and it is less expensive. E-commerce, in fact, is always going to be less expensive compared to traditional sales if it is not taxed. It is not fair to have retail establishments taxed, yet people who are selling the same product on the internet are not taxed because we prohibit taxation of those products. That has got to be resolved. If we go in this direction, which I think ultimately we will, how do we make up for the loss of revenue to our States and localities? We have to deal with this. We are the Nation's leaders, and it is incumbent on us to resolve these issues now before we make permanent such a profound change in our private retail and public revenue structures.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. This bill is the very height of hypocrisy. This legislation comes from a party who tried to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education in 1995. This is the same party who is proposing $1.3 billion in cuts to priority education funding for this fiscal year. These are the same people who have a two tiered agenda for federal education programs: to block grant programs and then cut the block grants. They may offer these proposals under the guise of education reform, and reducing federal oversight of education, but don't be fooled. This bill represents a fundamental lack of understanding the purpose of the important federal role in education. The federal role is not at all what the proponents of the so called Academic Achievement for All Act would have you believe. The federal role is not to dictate specific standards or some sinister plot to take over our local schools. The U.S. Department of Education doesn't want control over our local schools as some members would have you believe. The federal role in education is to meet needs and build capacity in areas that are not met by state and local funding. Their role is an important one to recognize these areas of unmet needs from their unique national perspective. The Department is able to take a small investment and target it effectively to these areas of need where the funds can truly make a difference. Proponents of the Academic Achievement for All Act would eviscerate states and localities from their responsibility to target funds to our most needy young students; and they plan to do this without meaningful accountability measures. The Academic Achievement for All Act is a misguided attempt to hand virtually all funding for federal education programs over to the states to decide how to spend this money. Historically, I am sorry to say, states and localities have often not stepped up to the plate in their responsibility to address funding disparities for schools in disadvantaged communities. In short, this legislation is a thinly veiled step in the Republican party's assault on our public education system. I urge my colleagues to support all children's rights to quality public education regardless of their economic means by opposing this very bad bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for raising the very important issue of technology. H.R. 2 is a very good bill because it really does address the inequities that exist throughout our public school system, but this amendment is also a terribly important one. The gentleman talked about technology. I represent an area that currently has about 30,000 unfilled technology jobs, and yet I read in the paper that only 17 percent of the students in computer science classes are women. So in an area that is expanding so fast, where we so desperately need skilled, well-educated personnel, we really need to be making a special effort to get the other half of our population far more involved in the kinds of jobs that give them control over their lives economically and socially. This amendment is designed to achieve that objective. It is a good amendment. I support it and it makes H.R. 2 all the finer piece of education legislation that should really set the direction for the 21st century. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation as a means of addressing the major inequities that disadvantaged students suffer as a result of our system of raising money through property taxes for our public schools. But it does lack an important measure which this amendment would restore and accordingly I would urge my colleague's support. The Women's Equity Education Act is so important to ensuring that girls are afforded the same educational opportunities as boys. We have made great strides in this direction since the program was originally initiated 25 years ago. Some may even suggest that the program is no longer necessary. I disagree for many reasons, but one sticks with me. My district and its surrounding community in Northern Virginia is home to many of the most prosperous high-tech companies in the world. Companies like America Online, Oracle and Network Solutions employ many thousands of my constituents. The Northern Virginia Technology Council estimates that there are 19,000 unfilled jobs in this region in the high-tech field. But here I read that only 17% of students in advanced programming computer science classes are young women. In a seemingly ever expanding economy based on new technologies, to not encourage women to fill these high paying, desirable jobs by encouraging their participation in these educational field would be unconscionable, and the result of leaving the Women's Educational Equity Act out of this bill. I urge my colleagues to continue to strive for gender equity, to end the disparity between women and men in earnings and retirement savings, and most importantly to make sure that girls and young women are afforded the same opportunities as boys and young men in our public schools.

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take any of the Members' time, but I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I do not think this conference is going to take long. We have had a very good meeting, and we are reaching agreement; and basically they are suggestions that we discussed the last time we visited this issue on the floor of the House. I do hope that that bizarre idea of adding the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill to the D.C. appropriations bill is a stillborn idea. Obviously, that would seriously complicate things. But as long as that does not occur, I think we can dispatch the D.C. appropriations bill in very quick order and bring it back to the floor and find the kind of agreement, in fact, hopefully unanimous consensus, that it is a bill that we can all live with and that the White House can sign.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the challenge from the distinguished gentleman and chairman of this appropriation subcommittee as to what we are attempting to seek. I will say it as explicitly as possible. The citizens of the District of Columbia do want to be held to the same Federal law that applies to every other citizen of the United States. We have said it, and in fact that is what this bill is all about. The only real issue here is whether D.C. citizens should have the same responsibilities and the same rights and be held accountable in the same manner as every other citizen in the United States. That is what this whole issue is all about: apply the same Federal law on medicinal use of marijuana as we apply in every other State and every other community. So we got a lot of red herrings here, and it has been suggested that the President on the one hand wants to legalize drugs and on the other hand, we quote, the very people he has appointed to fight drugs, quote them, that they are opposed to legalizing drugs. They cannot have it both ways unless all they are interested in is political rhetoric. The fact is that the President does not oppose this bill for the specific issues in these riders but because these riders do not belong in an appropriations bill, and it is not fair to the citizens of the District of Columbia to treat them differently than every other American citizen is treated. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that I cannot support this bill, because the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) did do a very fine job on the spending parts of this bill. In terms of appropriations, nice job, Mr. Chairman. Well done; it is a good bill. Unfortunately, it is the nonappropriation issues, the issues that do not belong in this bill, that have caused the problems. If it were not for those so-called social riders that should have been taken up by the authorizing committees that are substantive legislation that do not belong in an appropriations bill in our opinion, we are not for that; and this bill would pass unanimously. We could offer as a substitute today the appropriations bill that was approved by the full Committee on Appropriations. We did not get everything we wanted. In fact, we yielded and lost on a number of issues. But we had a bipartisan vote; it was almost a unanimous vote in full committee and an almost unanimous vote on the floor. We accepted the will of the majority. It was fair. There was some compromise. It was a good appropriations bill. Give us that bill, and our work is done, and I know the President will sign this. Give us the bill that the full majority-controlled Committee on Appropriations passed. Give us the bill that this House floor passed, and our work is done. We will sign in a moment, we will vote for it in a moment, and I am sure the President will sign it in a moment. Efforts to micromanage the affairs of the District were kept to a minimum in that bill. The functions that the Federal Government assumed under the revitalization act, that was terrific legislation thanks to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), the Chair of the authorizing committee, where these other issues should be dealt with. Those issues were funded at the appropriate levels. Those programs, they are good programs, crime, drug treatment, education, the environment, health care, and in fact they boosted funding for them. We wanted to keep that money; we wanted to support their efforts on that. Mr. Speaker, as I say, after we had an opportunity to debate the pros and cons and do some compromise, we agreed that it was a good bill, it deserved our support. But then we got to conference, and it became clear that we were not making progress, that in fact it was not a spirit of compromise that pervaded in the conference; and that is why we turned around and did not support the bill. For example, in voting rights the chairman gave assurances to the delegate from the District of Columbia that he would take care of the voting rights issue in conference. Did not happen. Had it happened, we would not be in this posture, and I would be happy to yield to the gentleman just as often as he yielded to me. So let us talk about the issues that are at stake here, and the point that I am trying to make, that we ought to treat the District just like our own constituents, nothing more, nothing less. No one in this body, to my knowledge no one in the Senate, has offered an amendment, for example, and has told their constituents that they cannot use their own local funds to provide health care for domestic partners. No one has done that. No one is telling their constituents who participate in more than 67 State and local government health care plans, more than 95 college and university health plans and 70 Fortune 500 company health care plans, at least 450 other major business plans, not-for-profit union health care plans, no one has tried to make it illegal for those private entities and State and local governments to do what they think is right for their constituents. No one, but we have done it for the District. No one in this body has offered an amendment to prohibit the 113, 113 other localities that have needle exchange programs. We have not tried. No one has tried to prevent them from using their local funds for those programs, and yet the District of Columbia has the very highest rate in the country of HIV infection, and that is why so many people care. It is the single greatest source of deaths for people between the ages of 25 and 35. Of all the communities that ought to be afraid to do what they think is necessary, no matter how radical some people may think it, the District has the worst problem. I am sure we would not do it to any other community, tell them that they cannot deal with their problems in the way that they see fit, particularly since every scientific and medical study, every study has affirmed that needle exchange programs in fact work. They reduce the transmission of AIDS and HIV, and they do not increase the use of illegal drugs. Every study has said that. But the reason that the Whitman-Walker Clinic in the District wants to do it is because it enables them to get access to people who are addicted to drugs. If they come in for the needles, the needles cost nothing; but when they go in, they identify the drug addicts in the community, they can get them into treatment, and they do not get needles unless they can get into drug treatment and counseling. That is what that is all about. But we said in committee, let us not deal with this issue with Federal funds. We accept the will of the majority. Let us not use any public funds. No public funds can be used for needle exchange programs, and that is what the full committee passed. Give us that language, and again this becomes the kind of bill that we could support. But our colleagues would not give us that language. They are saying private funds cannot be used. No willingness to compromise. Lastly, no one here would consider offering legislation that would apply the same restrictions on the medicinal use of marijuana that we have applied for District residents. We are not saying that we buy into the program. We understand it is a very controversial issue. But six States have passed referenda. They passed the referenda. Why not let the District of Columbia pass the same referenda? I have not seen anybody from any of those States try to prevent their States from passing such a referenda, only D.C. Is that fair? As my colleagues know, it obviously is not fair. So all we want to say is let the Federal law apply as it does to those six other States. We are not trying to change Federal law; we are just trying not to interfere with the District's right to have the same rights and responsibilities that everyone of our constituents have. Likewise the abortion issue. We fight about it every year, but we are willing to accept what is a more than fair compromise, keep the Federal funds out of it, prohibit Federal funds. So we go down the list, and everyone of these issues come down to the same thing, not whether or not we support the program, but whether or not we support the rights of the citizens of the District of Columbia to make their own judgments with their own funds, not with Federal funds. That is what this objection is all about. Lastly is the issue of voting rights. We discussed it on the rule. All that needs to be allowed is for the D.C. Corporation Counsel to advise the D.C. City Council, the elected body of the District of Columbia, on the status of legislation directly affecting D.C. citizens. That is all they have to do because the cost is paid for pro bono by a large law firm, but right now the D.C. Corporation Counsel cannot even discuss it with the D.C. City Council. Now this is not an unreasonable request. So I am going to offer an amendment, and all that amendment would do is to insert one word. It would say that no Federal funds can be used in the pursuit of, and actually I will give my colleagues the exact words; it would say: ``No Federal funds can be used by the District of Columbia Corporation Counsel or any other officer or entities of D.C. government to provide assistance for any petition drive or civil action which seeks to require Congress to provide the voting representation of Congress for D.C.'' No Federal funds can be used for that. That is what we want to do. I cannot imagine that my colleagues could come up with anything more reasonable as a compromise than that. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment that I have placed at the desk be considered as adopted.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, with regard to the last speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr), we did, in fact, have a hearing on this issue. It was an enlightening hearing. It was not conclusive, in my opinion, because we had statements from such people as the administrative law judge for the Food and Drug Administration that after studying the issue for a couple of years determined that marijuana was not as harmful as it has been described, although obviously tobacco is harmful, too, and it certainly is as harmful as tobacco, but they did, in fact, say it had some therapeutic effect. I did not know that. There are a lot of things that came out that were new to me, and I am sure would be new to a lot of people if there was a hearing, if we had all the facts out on the table, but we have not had that kind of a hearing because we are nowhere near making the medicinal use of marijuana legal for the rest of the country. In fact, even though 6 States passed referenda, they do not implement it because the Federal law prohibits them. That would be the case in the District of Columbia. They would be treated the same way as 6 other States in the Nation, big States, important States, including California, Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, lots of important States; did not hear their constituents speaking up against their ability to have a referenda. The needle exchange program, obviously controversial issue, difficult to discuss, like the abortion issue, but we have some very serious problems. More young adults die from HIV infection in the District of Columbia than from any other single cause. Yet, it is the principal cause, in fact, of transmission of AIDS to children, dirty needles. So the Whitman-Walker Clinic, private clinic, wants to be able to offer free needles so they can offer drug treatment and counseling to addicts. They need to be able to bring them in to the system, to try to save their lives. In fact, every scientific study has concluded that the use of free needles does not increase the prevalence of AIDS and it does not increase the use of illegal drugs, every scientific study, but we are not asking to make that Federal law. In fact, we are suggesting, let us prohibit the use of all public funds for needle exchange programs. Now, is that reasonable? Well, this body has decided on prior occasions that it is reasonable. The Labor Health and Human Services bill has that very same language. The Senate says it is okay to have needle exchange programs if the secretary certifies that it does not increase the use of illegal drugs and that it does not increase the prevalence of AIDS, the incidents of AIDS. That is a compromise. That is in this Labor Health and Human Services bill. We are just asking for the same language. In other words, we are only asking that the citizens of the District of Columbia, Mr. Speaker, be treated as the citizens of every other State of the Union. We are asking for nothing more, but nothing less, and that is the problem with this bill. That is the problem with all those riders. Imagine if a Member got up and offered legislation that prohibited a local jurisdiction in their district from using local property tax money for legal pursuits that their Commonwealth attorney or State attorney or whatever, or city attorney, might choose to pursue. That is all that is involved with this voting rights issue. All that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) wants is for the D.C. corporation counsel to be able to advise the D.C. city council on the status of legislation directly affecting the city and demanded by their constituents. All the language would say, that we have offered as a compromise, make sure no Federal funds are involved but let D.C. use its own money for that purpose. It is not much money. It is pennies, relative pennies, because a private law firm is doing the work. So all it does is to allow the D.C. corporation counsel to report to the D.C. city council on the status of the legislation. Big deal, and yet that is so threatening we cannot let D.C. do that? My gosh, it is not fair; it is not right. Now, all of these suggestions have been made that this is really about the President wanting some kind of liberal drug agenda? Baloney. The President has not proposed any of that legislation. The President, in fact his professionals, the people he has appointed, have opposed needle exchanges, have opposed legalization of marijuana. Rightly or wrongly, they are on record opposing it. All the President wants is that the citizens of the District of Columbia be treated like the rest of his constituency, because he knows it is not fair to single out D.C. and to treat them in a punitive fashion and to strip them of their right to govern themselves with their own money. That is all this is all about. That is the only reason the President acted as he did in vetoing the bill. In fact, we offered legislation, we offered a compromise, we probably went much too far, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and myself and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). We went further than we had any authority but we suggested, okay, let us just deal with the Voting Rights Act and we will do what we can do to get this bill passed. That, when it was rejected, made it clear that the real objection is not about drugs or about some kind of liberal agenda. The real objection is that the majority in this body apparently wants the right to punish, to treat D.C. citizens differently than they would treat their own residents. That can be the only conclusion. We have not asked for anything unreasonable on any of these issues, and I do not think the President acted unreasonably either when he vetoed the bill, for the reasons that he vetoed the bill. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me suggest that there may be still hope. I hope when we go to conference, even though we will be compelled to vote against this bill, we can still get a bill out of conference that resembles the House bill when it was first passed by the House that reflected the spirit of compromise in the House Committee on Appropriations. If we can get that kind of a bill, then we are on board; then we have acted responsibly towards the citizens of the District of Columbia. Then we know we have fulfilled our responsibility as Federal legislators.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that, contrary to what the gentleman suggested, that that would not be prohibited by the rule for the gentleman to yield for this request.