Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the problem with this legislation, and it is not a problem with the intent whatsoever, and I respect the intent that we do not want to overburden Federal judges so that they cannot judiciously consider every case before them, but the problem is that we are passing legislation that is intended to pass the test of time. We are passing it presumably for generations to come. So we can very well have a situation where we might double, triple, quadruple the number of Federal judges. We could have more Federal judges than we would ever need. But if 97 percent of those judges are the maximum slots that we can fill, if at any time we have a 3 percent vacancy, no matter what the total number of judges is, then we would say no class actions can be filed at the Federal court in terms of the class actions that we are trying to deal with. It has no set number. So we could deal with the situation where we could have twice, three times the number of Federal judges we have today, and still this amendment would be operable, and one would not be able to implement this amendment because one did not have 97 percent of the slots filled even though many of those slots might one day be in excess of the need that was actually required. That is the problem with the legislation, not the intent, but the possibility that this might create a situation that, in fact, was irrational and that, in fact, would undermine the intent of the legislation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Actually, not. We offer the most ungenuine flattery to those who we intend to oppose most vigorously. But that does not mean that I did not mean it when I say that the gentleman is a friend and a very credible and respected colleague, I say to the gentleman from Massachusetts. It is just that the gentleman's legislation does not make sense.

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, on the face of it, this may seem to be a corrective measure. The problem is that this is a classic loophole. There are a handful of States that have lax certification standards. Some might argue that that is what this legislation is all about, that there are certain States that are havens for frivolous class action lawsuits. What this does is to say, you play by the rules, you go to the Federal court, the Federal court finds that your suit is without sufficient merit, and then if you lose, you have the recourse to go right back to the States with the most lax certification standards and start the case over again. That is the problem with this. If we were talking about having an opportunity to appeal to a Federal court, that would be a more legitimate alternative and one that I think would have merit, personally. I cannot speak for the other sponsors, but I think that might have had merit. This, what this does is to open up a loophole. It is a loophole that in fact will become the standard course of action on the part of plaintiff's attorneys who have figured out how to best abuse the existing system. So that is why I have to oppose this legislation. Even though my very good friends and people whose judgment I highly respect have offered this amendment, I am afraid that perhaps unwittingly, I am sure unwittingly, they are offering legislation that will open up a loophole that will really nullify the intent of this corrective reform legislation. For that reason, I really think our colleagues should oppose it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. The gentleman will not get that. He will have all the compliments he wants, but I certainly would not vote for this legislation. I would not encourage any of my colleagues to vote for it, either.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, this is good legislation. It is needed legislation. So I rise in strong support of this legislation, because it will correct a statutory anomaly that conflicts with the original intent of the Framers of our Constitution. When the Framers drafted the Constitution, they created so-called diversity jurisdiction to protect parties against bias in State courts and to allow interstate lawsuits to be heard in Federal court. Diversity jurisdiction was codified in statute with individual lawsuits in mind. Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of the class action device, and I believe that it is an important tool in our legal system to provide justice for injured parties. Class actions improve the efficiency of our legal system and are often the best way to fairly adjudicate claims. With that said, though, we must also recognize the jurisdictional flaw in our system and the abuses that stem from it. We have a responsibility to ensure that plaintiff's and defendant's rights are both fairly protected. In 1966, the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules created rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It allowed similar claims to be heard together. No one at that time considered the unique nature of class actions and that the diversity jurisdiction statute did not make sense for class actions. The result of all of this is an historical anomaly that prevents interstate class actions, exactly the type of cases that should be heard in Federal court, from being heard in Federal court where they belong. It was never intended that State court justices in one State should be able to overturn the laws of other States. That does not make sense. It was never intended that that be the case by the Framers of the Constitution. Under current law, though, most interstate class action lawsuits cannot be heard in Federal court because they do not meet the technical requirements of diversity jurisdiction, or too often due to gaming of the system by plaintiffs' attorneys oftentimes. A plaintiff's attorney will find someone in a State where the defendant is located and as soon as they can do that it goes right into State court. That was not the original intent of the Framers. A case may be worth billions of dollars but a Federal court cannot hear it if each plaintiff's damages are not at least $75,000. It may involve millions of plaintiff class members across the country, but if there is one named plaintiff from the same State as one defendant then that case cannot be heard in Federal court. Recently, there was a case in Alabama and the attorney for the plaintiff said if anybody wants to claim more than $75,000 then they have to opt out. They are gaming the system. If somebody has a claim worth more than that then they should be able to get that claim and not be used as pawns to manipulate class action lawsuits. Most of the recent class action lawsuits filed in State courts are not single State cases. Plaintiffs' attorneys generally file these as nationwide actions, to create the most leverage to force defendants to settle, and that is what the game is all about, forcing large settlements because they know they have nationwide costly implications. The result of all of this is that one State or county court judge in a forum hand picked by plaintiff's counsel ends up dictating what the law is for the other 49 States. I do not want Virginia to have its laws decided by a judge in Texas or California or Illinois or New York. My colleagues should not want a State or county court judge in some other State adjudicating their constituents' rights without any accountability to the people of their own State, but that is what is happening today. This year in a House Committee on the Judiciary hearing, former Clinton administration Solicitor General, and the famous Duke Law School constitutional scholar Walter Dellinger, described what is going on as false federalism, because instead of having a Federal judge decide for all 50 States, a judge of one State is deciding for the other 49 States. It does not make sense. This false federalism is made worse by the rampant abuses that have been going on in some State courts and the lax certification standards that those courts apply. It is not right. It should not continue. We need to change it. It is important to recognize this is not a radical change to our legal system. This is only to correct an anomaly that should have been corrected and that until it is corrected will lead to wide scale abuse that is not acceptable. I strongly urge support for this contrustive corrective legislation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I represent the people of the United States presumably. I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments.

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the problem with the Thomas substitute is not its wording, it is its motivation. It is a cynical ploy to kill substantive campaign finance reform. We live in the greatest democracy in the history of western civilization, but it is not a true democracy as long as the wealthiest people and organizations in this country can have undue influence upon the elections and the votes of this body. We need substantive campaign finance reform, and we know it is what the people want. There is only one reason we do not do it, and it is the wrong reason. Since we began debating campaign finance reform years ago, millions of people, for example, have died as a result of tobacco smoking. We would not address the targeting of teenage smokers. Why? Not because many Members had tobacco growers in their district. That was not the reason. It is because we have tobacco money in our pockets. I could give any number of reasons, whether it be health care reform, insurance reform, tort reform, any number of issues. Do what the American people want. Restore a true democracy. Vote for Shays-Meehan and reject the Thomas substitute.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Cunningham amendment to restore funding for the Selective Service System. The sole mission of the Selective Service is to support our country's military readiness by supplying manpower to the Armed Forces adequate to ensure the security of the United States during a time of national emergency. The Selective Service is a small agency with a budget of less than $25 million. It relies on more than 10,000 volunteers who would serve on local, national and civilian review boards during a draft. Registering for the Selective Service is one of the few requirements we place on our young people. It is also one of the few opportunities we have to encourage young adults to consider public service. Through the response mechanism in the registration process, the Selective Service System provides men 18-25 years of age with information about a range of ways, military and civilian, to serve their country. These messages address all of the armed services, as well as civilian service opportunities, including America's Promise and Job Corps. At a time when our nation faces recruitment shortages and retention problems, it would be unwise for this body to terminate the one agency responsible for maintaining an up-to-date list of people that could be called upon should we need to return to a draft. Defense Secretary Cohen, the National Security Council, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and our nation's leading military service organizations oppose the elimination of funding for the Selective Service System because it could compromise this country's future mobilization capability. During a time of peace and with a strong economy, it would be very easy to abolish the Selective Service System. Who would notice? Many consider it out-of-date and unnecessary when we have the strongest military force in the world. But it would be a dangerous gamble to assume that we will never again need to rely upon the draft. If the Selective Service System is terminated and our nation was faced with a crisis, it would take more than a year to recreate the System. These sorts of delays could be disastrous in a state of emergency and could prevent a draft from being fair and equitable. Today's Selective Service System is also prepared to conduct a special skills draft, such as a draft for health care personnel, if the need arises. The ability to enact a health care draft would be critical if our nation ever experiences a military conflict involving mass casualties from nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. This is just one more benefit of a modern Selective Service System that provides an economically efficient way to support our manpower needs in a state of emergency. If Congress eliminated the Selective Service, it would be more costly to our nation in the long run to recreate the functions of this agency. A GAO study concluded that the costs associated with dissolving the Selective Service System and then gearing it back up would amount to more than $100 million. A decision so important to our ability as a nation to fulfill its constitutional obligations of providing for the common defense should be taken up by the Congressional authorizing committees, not the Appropriations Committee. Mr. Chairman, the House has debated the status of the Selective Service several times in the past decade and, each time, a clear majority has supported maintaining the Selective Service System. I urge my colleagues to continue this commitment to the Selective Service and vote for the Cunningham amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I think we have made our point. Number one, this is a good appropriations bill. If the Members wanted to change the national law with regard to the medicinal use of marijuana, with regard to needle exchanges, with regard to a host of other issues, there are dozens of social riders in this thing, we should go to the Committee on the Judiciary, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is here, and let him take them up. Let it go through the authorization process, not the appropriations process. We have agreed that there will not be federal funds used for any of these controversial measures. No federal funds. We are not arguing that. We are just saying treat D.C. like we treat the jurisdictions in our own congressional districts. That is all we are asking. And if we were to do that, we would all vote for this appropriations bill because it is a good appropriations bill. It has tax cuts, it has a surplus, and it does the right thing. We should do the right thing for the District. Vote against this. Let us get a real appropriations bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was out talking with the Mayor of the District of Columbia on the phone when this bill came up. I appreciate the Chair's clarifying that I will be managing this bill. As my colleagues know, it is sad and unfortunate that we find ourselves in this position because the D.C. appropriations bill really ought to be one that we could reach consensus on, send to the White House, get signed, and get out of the way and deal with the other bills. It should almost be done in a perfunctory fashion because, as the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) remembers, and I know he voted for the legislation, in 1997 we voted for the D.C. Revitalization Act, and what that said was that we are no longer going to do things in the way that had traditionally been done with regard to the District of Columbia. We are going to give them as much home rule as our Constitution allows. What we are going to do is to take the functions that other States perform, and the Federal Government is going to perform them, and the local functions, the functions that our cities perform, we are going to fund those with the same kind of grants and contracts that the cities in our legislative districts receive. So D.C. is going to be treated the same way that any of our own local jurisdictions would be treated. Mr. Speaker, the problem is that D.C. has not been treated the way that we would have treated our own constituents. That is why we oppose this bill. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has done a terrific job. I hope he listens to this although he is talking with the very distinguished ranking member of the full committee. But I want him to know that I appreciate what he has done as an appropriations chairman. As an appropriations bill, this is a good bill. It deserves support. The problem is not with the appropriations. The problem is with the authorizing legislation that has been attached to an appropriation bill. That is the extremist legislation. Mr. Speaker, who is the extremist here? We are appropriators. We do not have any business getting into needle exchanges, and into abortion, and into same-sex marriages, and into medical medicinal use of marijuana. All that kind of stuff, that is not our job. We appropriate money, and if we had stuck to appropriations, everything would have sailed through. But we did not. We came out of the House with a bill that had a number of riders although there had been some compromise, and there was an agreement we would do what we could to compromise with the Senate. Well, we go into the conference committee. We find out there have been pre-conference meetings that the Democrats did not even know about, never mind participate in. So we walk in, and it is a done deal. Virtually no room for maneuver, virtually no room for any kind of negotiation or compromise, and boy did we take the most reasonable position imaginable. Let me suggest to my colleagues some of the most reasonable things that one could imagine that we suggested that were rejected. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) had a proposal that I think was wrong for last year. He prohibited D.C. from even counting the ballots on whether the referendum as to whether there should be medicinal use of marijuana. This year he prohibited the use of drugs that included marijuana, made it a criminal penalty. So in conference we suggested, well, let us at least clarify some very important points. I offered an amendment that said first of all that the prosecutors will still be able to plea bargain agreements. If somebody is caught with marijuana, and they know that there is a major distributor out there, and they could get some information on the major distributor instead of somebody that is using marijuana for some kind of recreational use but had no prior record or whatever, let us not stick them with a mandatory criminal penalty. Let us let the prosecutors perform their job as they would with any other criminal penalty. Make sure they are allowed to plea bargain. Secondly, let us make sure that we are not unintentionally prohibiting the legal use of other drugs, such as Marinol, which apparently is a derivative of marijuana but is regularly prescribed as a painkiller. We do not want to make legal drugs illegal. So what could be more reasonable? We offered that. I just assumed that it would be accepted. Rejected. Not even any discussion. We suggested, in terms of the use of needles, this free needle exchange. We have an enormous problem in the District of Columbia. There is an article in the Washington Post today that shows that the number of children infected by their mothers because of dirty needles, that the number of children infected with the HIV-AIDS virus has gone up 70 percent between 1988 and 1997. D.C. has a worse problem than any other jurisdiction in the country. So we suggested, let us have the language say you cannot use federal or local funds for the needle exchange program, but let us at least let a private nonprofit organization function. Let us just put that language in, to make sure that Whitman-Walker can carry out its own program. We should not have any business in restricting a private nonprofit from doing what private funds enable it to do. Rejected. Not accepted. So it went on like that. The Senate thought it was a deal to accept the social riders that they did not have; and in return, they cut the money that the House had. What kind of a compromise is that? It was a lose-lose, when it should have been a win- win situation. So the major reason why we oppose this goes back to the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In this case it applies to our own local jurisdictions. Mr. Speaker, we would not impose the kinds of restrictions on any of our local jurisdictions that are imposed on the District of Columbia. Let me give you an example. Sixty-seven State and local government health care plans allow health care coverage for domestic partners. Ninety college and university health care plans, 70 Fortune 500 company health care plans and at least 450 other private company not-for-profit and union health care plans have that kind of coverage. I have never seen a Member of this Congress stand up and ask that those organizations in their district not be able to have that coverage. We are not talking about federal funds. Likewise, I have never seen any Member of Congress that has a congressional district in California, Oregon, Nevada, Alaska, Arizona or Washington State offer an amendment to block the implementation of a ballot initiative on the medical use of marijuana. It was approved in California. Where are the Members coming up and saying, despite what the voters of my jurisdiction did, I want to prevent them from carrying out the results of that referendum? We have not done it to ourselves. On none of these things have we done it to the people in our own constituency, yet we would do it to the District of Columbia. That is why we oppose the bill. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time, because we want to hear from the one democratically elected delegate from the District of Columbia who truly is elected to represent her constituency, and get her point of view. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify some things that I know my friend, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), inadvertently must have left out, because I think it is relevant to inform the Members that every single scientific and medical study has affirmed that needle exchange programs in fact do work with the highest-risk population in our urban areas. Baltimore's works particularly well, and that is why they continue it as one of the few programs that has worked effectively, because it brings people into the system where they can get into substance abuse prevention programs, reduction programs, and it enables them to be monitored so that you can limit the spread of AIDS. The National Institutes of Health, the American Medical Association, the Centers for Disease Control, we can go right down the line. Every prestigious organization that you would think would have an opinion has done a study, and they have all come to the conclusion that needle exchange programs do not increase the use of the illegal drugs, and they do reduce the transmission of the HIV-AIDS virus. But the other thing that inadvertently might have been omitted, or I guess actually it was misstated, but I think I know the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) or the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) would want me to clarify, because we are not talking about the use of taxpayer funds. That is what was referred to. The amendment in conference would have precluded the use of federal or local public funds. It only allowed private money, not taxpayer money, for the needle exchange program. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond. The gentleman, for one thing said with regard to the needle exchange programs that we should provide such authority to all the jurisdictions. Every jurisdiction in the country has the authority to determine whether or not they want a needle exchange program. A great many of them, I think it is 113 cities, have chosen to do so. All we are saying is the District of Columbia, under a democratic, small ``d,'' form of government ought to be able to make that decision on their own. Our language which said no Federal funds and no local public funds should at least have been accepted so one can use private funds. But with regard to the voting rights act, let me suggest to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who is my friend, the gentleman who consistently underscores the fact that the White House signed a bill that included this language, we have a written correspondence from the Executive Office of the President making clear that the administration opposes language included in both bills which would prohibit the use of Federal or District funds to provide assistance for petition drives or civil actions that seek to require voting representation in Congress for the District of Columbia. That was an omnibus bill. There were hundreds of provisions, thousands of them, actually, if one has gone into all the different tax provisions and so on. Politics is the art of compromise. We had to keep the government going, and there was some compromise sought. But that legislation expired at the end of this fiscal year. So the administration feels I know very strongly that that legislation should not be renewed and would be one criteria for vetoing this bill. Again, as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) says, there are some things that do require some resources from the District of Columbia, such as the D.C. Corporation Counsel being able to review the legal briefs to make sure there is no problem with the litigation that the private law firm is bringing forward. I am not talking about much money. Pennies. One has to know it is nothing that would even show up in an appropriations bill. But to be so extreme as to prohibit D.C. Corporation Counsel from reviewing that legal brief just does not seem fair or appropriate and does seem to the extreme. Now, I was looking for the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings). The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) represents the City of Baltimore, and, Mr. Speaker, he feels very strongly, having seen the very positive impact of the needle exchange program in Baltimore with regard to the serious drug problem that they are experiencing, that this is a proven program that should be renewed. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Baltimore, Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I will just conclude that the President has indicated that if we could get that language that said no Federal funds could be used for such a program, that would certainly be acceptable to him, and I believe to the body of this House, in the conference report. But again let me conclude where I started. I thank the chairman for his cooperation and his leadership on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, we have no objection to this motion. We do want to use this opportunity, though, to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) and congratulate him for the 333 to 92 vote on final passage of the D.C. appropriations bill. I do not know that anybody in this body is aware of this, but over the past 20 years, no D.C. appropriations bill has ever passed the House of Representatives with a higher margin of votes. This strong bipartisan support reflects a vote of confidence on a number of positive developments in the district. It is important to understand that that was unprecedented, virtually unprecedented to get that kind of margin of support for a D.C. appropriations bill. It is really for three reasons, a strong fiscal picture that includes a budget surplus that will make it possible for the first time in a decade to cut any taxes for D.C. businesses and residents. We have got a new mayor and city council who are committed to revitalizing the district, its businesses, its infrastructure and schools, and its public services. Thirdly, we have a new chairman who has made every effort to familiarize himself with the affairs of the District and played a fair and an even hand with District officials, with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), and with myself. I believe the strong bipartisan support, however, also reflects confidence that at least two of the riders that both the administration and many in Congress have objected to can be modified in conference. I am speaking of the commitment of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) to revisit provisions restricting the District from using even its own funds to pursue legal redress in Federal court on its voting rights claim. The amendment of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) to allow local funds to be used on this lawsuit lost on a tie vote, and the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee has given us a commitment that he will try to fix that because it was so close in the House. The second issue is the needle exchange program. As my colleagues know, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) prohibits the use of Federal or local funds for any needle exchange program in the District. The amendment goes even further to prevent any private organization or individual from offering a needle exchange program if they are in receipt of other Federal funds. This amendment ties the hands of the District to respond to a public health crisis. D.C. has the highest rate of HIV infection in the United States, and intravenous drug use is the second leading cause. It is the most likely cause that we can reduce with action that we might take, or at least enabling the District to take such action. It is wrong that the District suffers from the most restrictive language of any other city in the country, hampering its ability to stem the spread of AIDS. No such ban would ever be considered in any other jurisdiction where the other 113 needle exchange programs are operated throughout the country. Since the Senate is silent on restricting the District's needle exchange program, many are confident that this language will be modified in conference. I hope this will be the case so that the final conference report will be a document we can all support and, thus, will be signed by the President. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for letting us express our views on this again. We are not going to try to instruct the conferees. We had an overwhelmingly positive vote, I hope we can continue that spirit in conference, and I hope we can bring back a bill to this floor that will get the same type of overwhelming vote in support of it and get a bill signed by the President.

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution and in favor of the Jackson-Vanik waiver. I rise in opposition to this resolution and urge my colleagues to uphold the current waiver from the Jackson-Vanik provision. Mr. Speaker, the Jackson-Vanik provision of the 1974 Trade Act was intended to encourage communist countries to relax their restrictive emigration policies. At the time, the Soviet Union was prohibiting Soviet Jewry from emigrating to the U.S. and Israel. It specifically granted the President the power to waive restrictions on U.S. government credits or investment guarantees to communist countries if the waiver would help promote significant progress toward relaxing emigration controls. The co-author of this provision, Senator Scoop Jackson was a staunch anti-communist. Yet, he was willing to consider incentives to encourage the Soviet Union to relax its emigration policy. Vietnam is experiencing a new era, driven by a population where 65% of its citizens were born after the war. Vietnam today is thirsty for U.S. trade and economic investment. Last year, Charles Vanik, former Member and co-author of the Jackson- Vanik provision, sent me a letter expressing his strong opposition to the motion to disapprove trade credits for Vietnam. Ironically, the economic incentives provided in Jackson-Vanik are all one sided favoring U.S. firms doing business in Vietnam. A waiver of Jackson-Vanik does not establish normal trading relations with Vietnam. The Vietnamese Government has made tremendous progress in meeting the emigration criteria in the Jackson-Vanik amendment. Despite problems of corruption and government repression, there is reason to believe that our presence in Vietnam can improve the situation and encourage its government to become less isolated and to follow the rule of law. Through a policy of engagement and U.S. business investment, Vietnam has improved its emigration policies. As of June 1 of this year, the Vietnamese Government had cleared nearly 20,000 individuals, or 96% of applicants, for interviews under the Resettlement Opportunity for Vietnamese Returnees (ROVR). The Immigration and Naturalization Service has approved 15,833 ROVR applicants for admission to the United States as refugees--14,715 of which have left Vietnam for the U.S. According to the State Department, we are also obtaining ``the fullest possible accounting'' of our missing in action from the Vietnam War. Just last week, the U.S. and Vietnam finalized the terms of a bilateral trade agreement to address issues ranging from import quotas, import bans, and high tariffs to financial services, telecommunications, and other issues that are critical to opening Vietnam to U.S. products and services. U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam, Pete Peterson, our esteemed former colleague and former POW, has been one of our nation's strongest advocates for expanding trade with Vietnam. Renewing the Jackson-Vanik waiver will increase market access for U.S. products and services in the 12th most populous country in the world. Disapproval of this waiver will have several negative outcomes. It will discourage U.S. businesses from operating in Vietnam, arm Soviet- style hardliners with the pretext to clamp down on what economic and social freedoms the Vietnamese people now experience, and eliminate what opportunity we have to influence Vietnam in the future. I can see nothing gained by overturning the waiver and urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my House colleague Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and Senator Charles Robb today in introducing the ``Metropolitan Washington Regional Transportation Act.'' This legislation will help jump start relief and ease congestion within the metropolitan Washington, DC region. For more than four years running, we have the second longest average commuting time in the nation. According to the Greater Washington Board of Trade, this increased commuting time and congestion costs each man, woman, and child in the region more than $1,050 per year in lost time, wasted fuel, and environmental damage. Long commutes and traffic congestion have also become quality of life issues to area residents, robbing many families of the one commodity Washingtonians never seem to have enough of--time. Some drivers facing a longer commute have even become a safety hazard as they race recklessly to cut a precious few minutes from their daily commute. For those who lack cars, the distance between employment opportunities and affordable housing has grown more and more difficult to traverse. Our economic prosperity and quality of life hinge on improving our congestion problem. Unfortunately, as we look to the future the traffic situation only grows worse. Even with the increase in federal funds Virginia, Maryland and DC will receive under legislation reauthorizing federal surface transportation programs, ``TEA-21,'' this region will still fall seriously short of meeting the growing demand for transportation improvements. For the period of 1990 through 2020, this region can expect both a 43 percent increase in population and 43 percent increase in employment. This growth and increased dependency on the automobile is expected to increase, by 79 percent, the number of vehicle miles traveled in the region by 2020. The Board of Trade estimates that transportation spending is expected to fall short of the region's transportation needs more than $500 million annually. Any solution to current and future congestion demands strategic investment in both our road and mass transit system. It demands better land use and planning decisions and better interjurisdictional cooperation. And it also demands that this region come together and raise additional revenue to finance priority transportation projects that will provide immediate congestion relief. It may not be a popular idea, but we have to do more, and we have to do it ourselves. It seems to me, that the only way to ensure that we get 100 percent of the funds we need for our transportation projects is to raise more ourselves and spend it locally. It is also a process that ensures that the money gets spent where we determine it is needed most. I think the key to public support is identifying a list of priority projects that could be completed on a fast track providing the public with the assurances that their additional tax dollars will buy specific congestion relief. A large number of urban communities have already established a dedicated funding source for their transit systems. In the past, leaders from this region have shared a vision and worked together successfully to address important transportation needs, through such institutions as the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board at the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. We need a similar vision to carry us forward another 30 years. The Metropolitan Washington Regional Transportation Act will help us craft this vision. The legislation we are introducing today has five key elements. (1) It provides a new option to help the metropolitan Washington region more effectively address its transportation needs; (2) It empowers the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board to consult with the metropolitan Washington region jurisdictions and the public to achieve consensus on a list of critical transportation projects and a funding mechanism that is needed to address the growing congestion crisis in the region but cannot be funded within the current and forecasted federal, state and local funding levels for such projects. (3) It establishes a corporation with the power to accept revenue and issue debt to provide short-term funding for projects that have been agreed to by the region; (4) It grants consent to the metropolitan Washington region jurisdictions to enter into an interstate compact or agreement that would help meet the region's long-term transportation needs; and (5) It provides $60 million in matching federal grants as an incentive to encourage the creation of the federal corporation. This legislation provides the framework under which regional transportation needs could be addressed. It requires consultation with state and local officials at every level and in an effort to win state support, the legislation preciously guards state control of both the corporation and the authority through veto power. It does not raise anyone's taxes, but it does provide a mechanism or a ``vehicle'' through which the local jurisdictions could coordinate and commit future revenues to finance the construction of specific transportation projects that otherwise will not get built or built anytime soon. The ``Metropolitan Washington Regional Transportation Act'' gives us a choice and helps start a debate on how we should take control and improve our future transportation system and improve our quality of life. Our failure to act and meet our transportation needs will have a much higher cost. The Board of Trade places the cumulative regional economic losses from the failure to meet our transportation needs in the year 2020 at between $70.2 billion to $182 billion. That economic loss includes: a 350 percent of $345 million increase in shipping costs; $1.3 billion to $2.6 billion in higher warehousing and inventory costs; $1.365 per household, per year, higher consumer costs; and more than $1,000 per household, per year, in higher personal travel costs. I note that this legislation is supported by the county chairs and mayors of all eight Northern Virginia jurisdictions, D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams and D.C. City Council, the Greater Washington Board of Trade, and the Alexandria, District of Columbia and Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I think the biggest problem with this tax cut is that it is built upon a false assumption, a false assumption that at least the majority party is not willing to admit, and, that is, that of the $792 billion tax cut, $720 billion is attributable to cutting the existing level of Federal spending by 29 percent below today's current spending level. It is not going to happen. The majority party is not going to cut veterans spending by 28 percent, agriculture by 33 percent, the FBI by 28 percent. Are you going to cut transportation by 23 percent, are going to cut defense by $68 billion? You are not going to do it. The Committee on Appropriations met last week. It did not do it. It will not do it. And so if you do not do it, $720 billion of the $792 billion tax cut is not there. It evaporates because it is built upon a false assumption. You know it and we know it and that's why you should support this truthful instruction to the conferences.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) is quite right that an appeals court decided that two men could adopt a child in the District of Columbia, a little baby girl. I suspect that one of the reasons was that there are over 3,000 foster care children awaiting adoption, more than 3,000, in the District of Columbia. They do not have loving parents. Another reason why the court saw fit to allow this is that they had ruled on the parenting ability of these two people. And, in fact, every day domestic law judges, with the advice of social workers and other professionals, make determinations on the parental suitability of people wishing to adopt children who have no parents. That is the way it is throughout the country. This amendment is not law today, but if the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) prevails, the District of Columbia will stand alone in not allowing the court system, with the advice of professionals, to make that determination. The District of Columbia will stand alone in having that determination made by politicians in this body who have no knowledge of the suitability of those parents and no direct knowledge of the neediness of those children. If we adopt this amendment, we are saying we would rather these children be left as orphans, without parents, than allow two people, who the court decides are suitable parents, to adopt those children. That is what this amendment is all about. We are saying we do not want to make that determination, we want professionals to make that determination. We want the domestic law judges, who are today making that determination, to be able to continue to and not be precluded by this Congress. Mr. Chairman, in surveys that have been conducted, American citizens, by a 4-to-1 margin, say that they would prefer the court system to conduct its business without political interference. So we are not carrying out the public interest, we are not carrying out the interest of our own constituents, we are not even doing what they do in our own jurisdictions today if we pass this amendment. Mr. Chairman, there are going to be any number of very substantive arguments raised against this amendment. I want to enable my colleagues to make those arguments, but I would very strongly urge defeat of this amendment in deference to the professionals in the court system who are able to make these decisions in every other part of the country. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and to claim the time in opposition.