Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, if I might explain my question of the Speaker, there is perhaps a misunderstanding, and maybe it is on my part, but is it not a correct understanding that it would be in order, if the gentleman were to yield, such yielding for this purpose would not be prohibited by the rule that was passed? Is that a correct interpretation?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my friend, the gentleman from California, that the issue that he talked about is really not the issue that is at stake here. He very well knows that the State of California passed a referendum dealing with allowing medicinal use of marijuana. They had lots of loopholes in it. But my friend did not get to the floor and try to overturn their law. He may have tried, but it never got to the floor. It never got enacted. They are still dealing with that legislation. We are just asking for D.C. citizens to be treated the same as California citizens.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I know my friend from Kansas would appreciate having his quote fully explained so that no one might take it out of context. General McCaffrey's quote was, ``I think the expanding number of needle exchange programs may go on at the community level, but it is our own viewpoint that Federal dollars need to be really conserved for effective drug treatment, particularly in support of the criminal justice system.'' General McCaffrey's office has told us that his remarks were taken out of context. He does support a ban on Federal funds for the use of needle exchange programs which, of course, is the language that we are trying to get in this bill, the very language General McCaffrey supports, but he has never supported a prohibition on local jurisdictions' efforts to implement a needle exchange program. Now, these are the facts. I know the gentleman agrees with me that we are all entitled to our own opinion, but not to our own set of facts. These are facts. This is General McCaffrey's full quote, and I know he appreciates having his quote clarified so that it is not taken out of context. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, he has not yielded. I wanted to clarify that, that the gentleman was free to yield, but chose not to yield for that purpose. His yielding would not have been prohibited with the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. We have lots of problems, but we would like to work out a compromise.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I would say to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr), we have lots of problems with the language. What we want is to reach a compromise and get this appropriations bill.

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me this time. First of all, let me say to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), in defense of what my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), said we have two issues, as the gentleman knows, that could resolve this entire debate. One is voting rights, which we have offered, and it simply says, as the gentleman from Maryland so eloquently expressed, just prohibit Federal funds. That is all. The other is an issue that in a bipartisan way we discussed at length in the full Committee on Appropriations. We brought out all the scientific studies. We explained that this needle program is really for the purpose of bringing drug addicts in, enabling Whitman-Walker Clinic to provide drug treatment for them. It is access to people in desperate need of help. We are not trying to use any Federal funds. The use of all public funds can be prohibited. Just let them use private funds; and that is what the bipartisan, full Committee on Appropriations agreed to, bar the use of public funds. Let Whitman-Walker conduct its own affairs, though, with private funds. If those two provisions were accepted, the White House told the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), it could accept this bill; it could accept this bill. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) told the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) he would work out the Voting Rights Act in conference. It was not done. That is why the gentlewoman is so upset. The gentleman said he would do it, and it did not get done. The gentleman can say he tried, but it did not happen. With regard to needles, we are just saying bar the use of public funds, and that is what Members of the gentleman's side of the aisle agreed. Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude the point that I was making. This side is not being intransigent. This side feels very strongly about all of the issues in the veto message, but this side wants to make an agreement. This side wants to move forward. This side wants to find some bipartisan commonality. We are not asking for anything that has not been accepted by the majority of this body, really. Voting rights, and the amendment that was accepted in a bipartisan way on barring the use of public funds, this is not unreasonable. All we have to do, and that is what the White House has suggested, buy into those, we will fight the issues another day. That is what we should do.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman's point, but we have a misunderstanding as to the issue. I am not talking about the Federal use of funds for marijuana or for needles. This is only voting rights.

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. To the gentleman from Oklahoma, what I would like to suggest, notwithstanding all of the rhetoric that the gentleman just shared with us, is that if the gentleman would agree to add one word and drop one provision that has nothing to do with drugs, then we would accept this bill, this bill gets signed, and this whole discussion is moot. It will be done. We cannot tell the President what to do, but from this side; not that we would want to disagree with the gentleman's premise, but the reality is that if the gentleman would simply let the District of Columbia use its own funds to review the court cases that are currently involved so that the D.C. Corporation Council can advise the D.C. City Council on what cases are currently pending in court, then we could accept this. That is all we are asking. We are not fighting on this drug issue. We may disagree; we may feel that D.C. has the right to determine what is in its own interests. We may feel that it is appropriate to allow private funds to be used for legal purposes. But we also recognize we have a responsibility for the District of Columbia government to be able to function; and the fact is, this is a decent appropriations bill if it were not for all of these ideological riders. The gentleman will recall that in the full Committee on Appropriations, we got some compromises. We did not ask for a lot. We got a compromise where the majority of the committee, bipartisan, agreed we will just put in with the use of public funds for any needle program. Forget the fact that it is used so that they can provide drug treatment and counseling and so on. Go ahead and ban the use of public funds, but do not try, through a Federal appropriations bill, to say private people cannot contribute money for private purposes. It is a nonprofit private organization. That is all we asked. So there was a compromise, and we went to this floor in a spirit of compromise. And if the gentleman will recall, that bill passed overwhelmingly. It was a good appropriations bill. It was a right thing for the District of Columbia. We go into conference and there is virtually nothing that happens. We lose that spirit of compromise. Now we are here on the floor. I would not want to suggest that the only reason we are here is so that we can make some charges against the Clinton administration and the Democrats, charges that are clearly unfounded, charges that are clearly not right. In fact, the Clinton administration came out strongly against the medicinal use of marijuana even, came out strongly against any of the programs that the gentleman is suggesting. The gentleman has already quoted Clinton administration officials, but what they want to preserve is the right of the citizens of the District of Columbia to run their own affairs. That is the issue here. All that the gentleman would have to do is to add one word, and that is ``Federal,'' simply add that with regard to voting rights. That is all that we are talking about. And then, D.C. City Council can use public money, local, tax revenue so that its D.C. Corporation Council can advise it on bills that directly affect the D.C. government that are in the court. Right now, the gentleman says D.C. government cannot use its own local funds to even advise the D.C. council on the status of the voting rights legislation. That is not fair. Prohibit Federal funds; do not prohibit D.C. local funds. Make that adjustment; we will find a way to get this bill over to the President's desk; and we will recommend signature. And we will have fulfilled our responsibility. So for all of the protestations, for all of the rhetoric, here we have a negotiation. It is a reasonable offer. It has nothing to do with drugs, nothing to do with the social riders that the gentleman has been talking about. Accept it, we will move forward. We will fight these other issues maybe in another year, or on another appropriations bill, but let us do the right thing by the D.C. government, by the D.C. citizens. Let us keep this out of some omnibus bill where they lose control of the ultimate fate of this bill. It is a small bill. Let us do the right thing on this.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the very distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for bringing this legislation up. Obviously, the purpose of this is to continue to keep the public focused on the urgency and importance of gun legislation. It is unfortunate we use the term ``gun control.'' This is simply common sense attempts to do what rational people would want done in the context of what has become a crisis situation in our schools and in our communities. But what this legislation that has been suggested does not do is terribly important to emphasize. It does not prevent anyone from using rifles. It does not make it illegal to own handguns. It does not confiscate or require the registration of handguns. It does only three relatively marginal things. It says if they are at gun shows, then they ought to have the same requirements as retail gun shop owners in selling handguns. That makes sense, have the same requirements. Why make it so much easier for people at a gun show? Why should we be importing large magazine clips? That does not make a lot of sense. They are not for the purpose of hunting. They are for the purpose of killing, and they are the weapons of choice for drug dealers. And then why not have child safety locks? We do not let children drive automobiles. We require them to know what they are doing. We ought to make it difficult for children to be able to have access to guns. It seems to me these are marginal things, and they are suggested in the light of a critical situation. Canada and other civilized countries have about a dozen deaths from firearms in a year. We have over 20,000. That is too many. Look at the differences. It is not that people hunt less in Canada. They hunt more. But they require people that have access to guns to be able to know how to use them. That is common sense.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference agreement to H.R. 2561, making FY 2000 appropriations to the Department of Defense. As a Member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the strong bipartisan leadership exhibited by Chairman Lewis and Congressman Murtha in developing this conference report. Confronted with the difficult task of negotiating an agreement between two vastly different bills, their bipartisan approach should serve as a model of how this entire body should work. We have produced a strong bill that makes a number of critical investments in our nation's military, most especially the people who serve our country. This bill funds a 4.8 percent pay increase for our military personnel and an additional $399 million to support DOD's recruiting and retention efforts such as elimination of the so-called REDUX policy. After many long hours of negotiation, we reached a compromise on the F-22 program that will require further testing of the F-22 aircraft and make procurement of the aircraft contingent on the F-22 passing certain performance tests. This action sends a signal to the entire defense establishment that, given the demands on today's military forces, we cannot back away from some difficult choices concerning our weapons modernization programs. This bill carefully balances all facets of our military budget in order to sufficiently invest in hardware without shortchanging our military personnel. For this reason, we should exercise every opportunity to demand excellence and efficiency from the money we appropriate. I am optimistic that the outcome of this conference will set a precedent for how our subcommittees must balance our nation's defense spending priorities in today's post-Cold War era. We have undertaken a serious debate on how to develop and procure the best weapons technology and military equipment available today without shortchanging readiness and quality-of-life issues that are equally critical to the men and women who serve in our military. I would also like to commend the staff from both subcommittees for their assistance to my office and, most especially, their tireless work in developing this conference agreement. Their professionalism throughout this process is to be highly commended. I have benefitted from the tremendous expertise and institutional knowledge my esteemed colleagues who sit on this Subcommittee and am proud to support this conference report. I urge my colleagues to vote for this agreement and promptly send it to the President for this signature which I trust it will secure.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Dingell-Norwood bill and in opposition to the substitute alternatives. I am not going to address the specifics of the bill because I am confident my colleagues will do a good job of that but instead I want to just share with you the kind of trauma that I hope this bill will address. I received a letter from one of my constituents, a police officer in Alexandria, who was compelled to write about her problems with her own managed care company. ``The entire ordeal was hideous.'' she wrote. Kris Gulden suffered a spinal chord injury in an accident which resulted in paralysis below the waist. After the accident, Kris began the grueling work of occupational and physical therapy that can make such a difference in quality of life. Her therapists told her that her hard work was paying off and that more therapy could continue to make a difference. Unfortunately, her managed care company disagreed. They refused to extend the standard 90 days of coverage through their internal appeals process because it was a ``quality of life issue'' and not a ``life and death issue.'' Kris appealed as many times as she could through the managed care organization's internal appeals and then had no further recourse. Fighting over late bills and arguing with the managed care company became the focus of her life when she should have been focusing on exercise and therapy that would have made her stronger. Fortunately, Officer Gulden has a compassionate employer in the City Manager of Alexandria who helped her deal with the unpaid bills, and a compassionate family and community who helped her raise additional money for further therapy. But she wrote because she doesn't want to see the same thing happen again to anyone. ``It's ridiculous that what most prevented me from getting better was my HMO.'' she wrote: Not being able to walk, not being able to stand up to take a shower, living with abnormal bowel and bladder function . . . in general, living with a disability is a walk in the park compared to what they put me through. Truly, dealing with them has been the worst part of this whole ordeal. Finally, the most important point of Kris' letter was to say that ``I am vehemently opposed to any compromise on the Patient's Bill of Rights.'' I close by asking my colleagues to do what Kris, and so many of our constituents like her wish. I urge you to support the Dingell- Norwood bill without amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the record two resolutions in recognition of the 250th Anniversary of the City of Alexandria, Virginia. As Alexandria's former mayor, I am now proud to represent the city as part of the Commonwealth's 8th Congressional District. This historic seaport city, an early and continuing center of political, business and social life, has drawn from its rich cultural heritage up until the present day, and in so doing has become one of the most frequently visited tourist destinations in the nation today with 1.2 million visitors annually. To mark this special anniversary year, Alexandria has hosted hundreds of additional cultural events, concerts, symposia, tours and exhibitions, and residents and visitors alike have benefited from the valuable history lessons this great city is able to provide. I'm sure my colleagues here today will join me in congratulating Alexandria on its long and distinguished history. May the next 250 years be as remarkable for this very fine American city. Proclamation Whereas, the site of Alexandria was occupied for several thousand years by Native Americans; and Whereas, Captain John Smith and a party of explorers from Jamestown first visited the site of Alexandria in 1608; and Whereas, a tobacco warehouse was established in 1730 at the foot of Oronoco Street in what is now Alexandria, and a settlement informally called Hunting Creek Warehouse grew up around the warehouse; and Whereas, a group of Scottish merchants tried to name the area Belhaven, after Scottish patriot John Hamilton, Baron Belhaven, in 1749; and Whereas, the Virginia House of Burgesses and Council, upon petition of other local residents, voted in May 1749 to establish a new town called Alexandria, named after the Alexander family on whose land the town was to be built; and Whereas, Governor Gooch convened the House of Burgesses and Council in the Council Chamber on May 11, 1749, and gave his assent to the bill establishing the new town. Now, therefore, I, Kerry J. Donley, Mayor of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, and on behalf of the Alexandria City Council, do hereby proclaim May 11, 1999 to be the 250th anniversary of the creation of Alexandria, Virginia. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Alexandria to be affixed this 11th day of May 1999.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the gentleman from Washington, our very valued ranking member on our subcommittee, and I want to thank the chairman of our Subcommittee on Interior for his very fine work; and I am just up here to support this instruction because I know it is wholly consistent with what our chairman would want, as would all the enlightened Members of this body. Sometimes the Senate gets away with things, and we just have to try to set them straight. So I support this because not only would I like to see a little extra money for the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, but certainly we ought not allow mining operators to claim at taxpayer expense as much acreage as the operators deem necessary for these waste piles that pose significant environmental problems. So the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) won that issue on a 273 to 151 vote; we certainly ought to stand firm on it. But perhaps the most important thing that we could do in conference would be to prevent the Senate from adding any number, a host of anti- environmental riders that they slipped in. They slipped them in without public review, overriding existing environmental protections, limited tribal sovereignty, and imposed unjustified micro-management restrictions on agency activities. To think that this bill permanently extends expiring grazing permits nationwide on Bureau of Land Management lands without the environmental review required by current law, it delays the forest plans until final planning regulation of the public, thus preventing new science and sustainable forest practices from being incorporated into expiring forest plans. It has a limitation on tribal self-determination; there is a permanent prohibition on grizzly bear reintroduction on Federal lands in Idaho and Montana that overturns a recent Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision requiring Federal land management agencies to conduct wildlife surveys before amending land management plans; there is a limitation on the receipt of fair market value for oil from Federal lands; it delays for the fourth time the publication of final rules to establish fair market value. Mr. Speaker, that alone costs the taxpayers $68 million, and the Senate just slips it in. There is a limitation on energy efficiency regulations in the Federal Government. These have been praised by everyone, and yet this Senate provision stops us from implementing that Federal energy efficiency regulation. There is delays for the Columbia Basin ecosystem plan, the Columbia River Gorge plan, mineral development in the Mark Twain National Forest that overrides Federal land managers' ability to act responsibly there. There is a host of environmental riders. They are all anti- environmental riders. None of them should have been slipped in. We would not have allowed them on the House floor; we should not allow them in the conference.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was unavoidably detained by official business and, as a result, missed roll call vote number 453. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on this resolution.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time. The eloquent statements that are referred to by James Madison, Richard Henry Lee, and others made 200 years ago were proper and a reflection of their great leadership at that time. But it was also a time when slavery was legal and we slaughtered Native Americans to take their land; when we resolved disputes by gunfights at the OK Corral or wherever. We were a pioneering Nation and, in fact, most families had guns. It was a small population. It was a population in danger. Our enemy was England at that time. However over the last 200 years, we have progressed to become the greatest democracy in the history of western civilization. And yet, this issue is the one aspect of our society and our democracy which is the least civilized, which is the most embarrassing distinction of our country because every other civilized Nation in the world today has a handful of deaths by firearms. Whereas, the United States has more than 20,000 deaths by firearms, most of them innocent, accidental, or victims of the kind of carnage that we have witnessed this year and in so many subsequent years: teenagers getting their hands on lethal weapons. There is a reason, and it is because of this perverse distortion of the meaning of the Constitution. Let me just cite the words of Chief Justice Warren Burger, who was a gun collector. He loved guns. He had almost every major gun in his collection. He prized them. He was also a Republican appointee to the Supreme Court, became Chief Justice, served with great distinction. This is his public statement: ``One of the greatest pieces of fraud,'' and he said, ``I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime is this interpretation of the Second Amendment.'' Our Federal courts have ruled that this did not give individuals the right to bear arms. The purpose of this language was clearly to enable people to bear arms to the extent that it contributed to a well- regulated militia that was essential at that period of our growing Nation. We have statements that reflect this interpretation of the Constitution that explain why the NRA has never challenged a gun control law by taking it to the Federal courts. They try the Tenth Amendment, they try other ways; they know they would lose on the Second Amendment. Nicholas Katzenbach, Ramsey Clark, Elliot Richardson, Edward Levi, Griffin Bell, Benjamin Civiletti, all of our U.S. Attorneys General, they say, For more than 200 years, the Federal courts have determined that the Second Amendment concerns the arming of the people in service to an organized State militia; it does not guarantee access to guns for private purposes. All we are trying to do is to reflect the intent of the American people in a democratic society. The vast majority of the people want reasonable gun control. They want their children to live safely in their streets and to be safe in their schools. That is why this amendment should be soundly rejected.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, again, I would say to the gentlewoman from California, my friend and respected colleague, that what has happened in the past, while it might be precedent, is not as relevant to this legislation as what will happen in the future. We are not passing legislation to apply to the past. We are passing legislation to apply to the future. I would hope that this Congress, in concert with the Senate, would in fact increase the number of Federal judiciary slots to meet the need. Even if it exceeded the need, if in fact it was a 3 percent vacancy which might be rational at some point in time, then it would nullify this legislation. That is not a situation I am sure that my colleague would want to create.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if the gentlewoman wants to propose legislation to substantially increase the number of Federal judiciary positions, I would cosponsor that legislation in a New York minute or a Los Angeles minute. I certainly think we ought to increase the number of Federal judges, but I do not think we should pass this legislation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. That is right.

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman from Colorado that we are not passing legislation to serve the interests of the past. We are passing legislation to serve the interests of the future. So what has been the case in the past is not as relevant as what might be the case in the future. It is very well possible that we may substantially increase the number of Federal judges and then, just because we have a 3 percent vacancy, the intent of this legislation is essentially null and void. That is not a situation that I am sure my colleague would want to create.