Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his outstanding cooperation for the Washington metropolitan region. He does a lot for the District of Columbia specifically. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the elected representative of the District of Columbia and our last speaker.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) that we are prepared to conclude. So if the gentleman from Oklahoma is prepared, the gentleman can conclude, and we will renew this debate on Thursday. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to come to floor today to recognize the tremendous career of Bob Tobias, longtime friend and advocate to federal employees everywhere. In August, Bob will not be seeking reelection for a fifth term as President of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), an organization which represents more than 155,000 employees in 20 federal agencies and departments. During his 31 years with the NTEU, including 16 as President, he has turned it into one of the most effective voices federal employees have ever had. Bob and I have worked together since I was first elected to Congress in 1990. Bob was extremely helpful in advising me on the complex legislation to promote fair and equitable compensation and benefits for our civil servants. Bob earned his law degree from the George Washington University School of Law, based right here in DC. He then went on to use litigation as a tool to advance the interests of federal employees across America. Bob has led several landmark legal victories, including a successful half-billion dollar back pay suit against President Nixon, a federal court victory that gave federal workers the right to engage in informational picketing, and a Supreme Court win that overturned the ban on speaking and writing honoraria. In fact, Bob has been involved in every major piece of legislation impacting federal employees during the last 20 years. These include the development of FERS, protecting the FEHBP, the restructuring of the IRS, and enacting the Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act. He has also been tireless in promoting the idea that partnership can make the workplace better for federal employees, providing a more efficient service to the American taxpayer. Bob also led the fight to restore political freedom to federal employees in pushing for reform of the Hatch Act. Bob is now focusing on different priorities; a second career as a teacher and writer on public policy issues beckons, where he will be able to educate a new generation. I have enjoyed working with you Bob, and look forward to continuing to work with you on issues that are so important to working families. I wish you the best of luck.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the time, but more importantly for his leadership on this issue. This is an important amendment. I would hope that it would pass unanimously. The gentleman from New York has mentioned a list of 5,000 people who are unaccounted for. We know the ruthless, lawless way in which the Serbian military, paramilitary and police have treated Kosovar Albanians. But these 5,000 people are represented by families, thousands of people who do not know whether their loved ones have been executed in any number of the brutal massacres that we know have occurred in Kosovo or whether they are being held in prison. If we allow access by the International Committee of the Red Cross, we will at least enable the parents, the families, to know what might have happened to their loved ones. It also means that we will be able to impose some limits on the conditions in which these people are living. There is a good reason why the Red Cross has not been allowed access, we are afraid, and, that is, that they do not want us to know what they are doing, how they are treating the prisoners in their jails. This is a good amendment and it should pass unanimously.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith amendment as written and in strong support of the Campbell, Maloney, Gilman, Crowley, Greenwood amendment. The Campbell, Maloney, Gilman, Crowley, Greenwood amendment clarifies once and for all, the purpose of the United Nations Population Fund which is not to provide abortion services for women in foreign lands, but rather to provide basic reproductive health care to women which reduces the number of abortions and provide pediatric health care for infants. It also clarifies that no U.S. funds will be used in China. The UNFPA has been portrayed by its opponents as a vestige of American imperialism bearing down on countries that are struggling to keep their nations free of the evils of abortion and aiding countries like China with a proven record of coerced abortion. The Smith amendment supports this portrayal by cutting all funding in the bill for UNFPA unless it complies with impossible demands. What this position fails so poorly to report is that international family planning programs supported and originally intimated by the United States have nothing to do with abortion except that they have the potential to reduce the number of abortions performed legally or illegally internationally. They do so by preventing unplanned pregnancy and educating women and men about the importance of planned and timed pregnancy. Sadly, what should be a common ground for debaters on both sides of the polar abortion issue has become a battleground for maternal and child health advocates on either side of the debate. The fact is that productive health programs represent a continuum of care for mothers and children that provide prenatal and pediatric care for children. Equally importantly, these programs provide lessons in how to effectively space pregnancies to prevent maternal and infant mortality. Planning and timing pregnancy is not just a theory that makes it easier for parents to manage their children. Children who are born less than two years apart are twice as likely to die as an infant. This nation has the resources to provide those less fortunate with the ability to control their own lives. With proper education, those in developing countries can plan their families just as we in the United States do. It is unconscionable, as leaders of the most prosperous nation on Earth, that we would deny these vital resources to the least prosperous on Earth. The Smith amendment claims to fund UNFPA after certifying the program's withdrawal from China, or certification that there are no forced abortions associated with China's population control program. This amendment shows a lack of understanding of the way UNFPA works. China has requested UNFPA assistance in 32 countries. When assistance is requested UNFPA goes to work. It cannot withdraw unless the country asks them to withdraw. Accordingly, the President cannot certify all of China's population control program because UNFPA does not operate in all China. They could, however, certify the countries in which they are engaged. The clarifying amendment offered by Representatives Campbell and Maloney, and others would simply prevent U.S. funds from being used in China by reducing our contribution to the fund by the amount UNFPA spends in China. In addition, the amendment would withhold the entire U.S. contribution if any UNFPA funds are being used for abortion services. I would ask my colleagues, if we can affirmatively certify that this money is not being used for abortions, and that no U.S. funds are being used in China, why would we not support maternal and child health programs? I urge my colleagues to support Representative Campbell's clarifying amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this continent has a long history with the continent of Africa, and invariably it has been one of exploitation. Generations ago, we used the African people, brought them to this country and enslaved them. And even after emancipation was granted, we continued to enslave them through a legal system that discriminated against them. We continued to exploit them to subsidize our agricultural economy. And then we used the African nations as surrogates in our Cold War with Russia. Well, now, today, because of the initiative of indigenous leaders on the continent of Africa, we are finally saying, ``Look, you are on an equal basis with us. We need you. You need us. Let us work together on a level playing field.'' They have come into their own. This should have happened generations ago, but we should not miss this opportunity today. This legislation is not patronizing. It is not exploitative. It is the right thing to do. Let us pass it unanimously.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the DeLauro amendment and against the provision in this bill that denies women who are Federal employees a constitutional right that other citizens of this country currently enjoy. Now I would say to my friend who had 8 minutes of graphic testimony to share with us that partial-birth abortions are banned. I even voted to ban such partial-birth abortions. So that is not the reality, and neither is it the reality that Federal funds are being used for abortion services. If in fact they were, then the Hyde amendment of 1974 would apply, and we would not have this amendment on the floor. The only reason we have this amendment on the floor is because these are not Federal funds. This is the compensation that Federal employees receive for work that they provide to the citizens of this country. They receive compensation the same way that every other working family does, salary, health benefits, retirement; and with virtually every other working situation, every other employer, there is some subsidy of that health benefit. But this is their income, and my colleague has no more right to restrict what they can do with their private income than he does to restrict what other families receiving income from the private sector are able to do. Now let me also share with my colleagues some reality, what this really means, and I will get a little graphic, too, although not nearly as graphic as my friend from New Jersey has gotten. I received a letter from a constituent from northern Virginia who happened to be a Federal employee. She writes: I was 20 weeks pregnant when I got the bad news. My baby had Trisomy 18, a fatal genetic defect that causes the heart and lungs to fail after birth. There is no possibility that a baby can survive after birth. My doctor strongly recommended that I terminate the pregnancy. He was astounded to learn that the insurance company was not the problem because our insurance covered abortion services for situations like this. The problem was the United States Government and specifically the United States Congress. My husband and I were faced with a terrible decision, go to term with a baby that could not possibly live or spend a year's worth of our savings to terminate the pregnancy. I could not face the thought of spending another 5 months pregnant knowing my baby would not live. Imagine having to explain, Mr. Chairman, this is reality, having to explain to everyone who asked, which people do, that we have not chosen a name or made any preparations because the baby is not going to live. This law amounts to discrimination against Federal Government employees, against Federal female government employees. It is absolutely wrong. This amendment should be approved; the provision should be struck.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, our message today is really directed at the majority. We are asking them not to shoot themselves in the foot, not to let this wonderful economy be dissipated by policies that are contrary to the public interest, tax cut policies that are counterproductive at best and severely damaging to our economy at worst. We know that we are enjoying the finest economy that this country has ever experienced. And it can be a sustainable economy. We have had a decade of unprecedented profits and productivity with low inflation and high employment. The only thing that could kill that prosperity now is a tax cut that was too deep, that was irrational, that gave relatively small amounts of benefit to a lot of people who need them the least. The fact is that too deep a tax cut will arrest the kind of controlled inflation and low unemployment that we are now experiencing. An $800-billion tax cut is too deep. We can responsibly target our tax cuts and achieve more at \1/3\ the revenue cost. We can keep this economy going. We can keep inflation low. Do not give Mr. Greenspan reason to increase interest rates. We have got a good thing going. Let us keep it going. Do not go overboard with an irrational tax cut.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good amendment. These steel-jawed traps cause gratuitous cruelty. I do not see the reason why we need these when there are a number of other trapping devices that accomplish the purposes that are served on wildlife refuges to keep various populations under control. This amendment only applies to commercial trapping. I think it is an appropriate amendment. I think we ought to pass it. I would be surprised if we could come up with substantive arguments against it. But I would not be surprised if certain of our colleagues do oppose it, because they seem to oppose any attempt to protect our environment or to respect the other innocent beings who attempt to inhabit it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, as one of the lead Democratic sponsors of the Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act, I rise today in strong support of this legislation. Anybody that has followed this legislation knows that the debate surrounding it on both sides of the aisle has at times been driven more by political maneuvering than substantive policy concerns. That is why we are so pleased that this truly bipartisan compromise conference report has been worked out with both Chambers and the White House. It was done because all involved decided it was more important to our Nation and our economy to pass Y2K litigation reform than to play politics as usual. Currently, American businesses, governments and other organizations are tirelessly working to correct potential Y2K failures. It involves reviewing, testing and correcting billions of lines of computer code. American businesses will spend an estimated $50 billion to reprogram their computers, but despite these efforts many of the Y2K computer failures will occur because of the interdependency of the United States and world economies. In contrast to other problems that affect some businesses or even entire industries engaged in damaging activity, the Y2K problem will affect all aspects of our economy, especially the most productive high- tech industries. As the Progressive Policy Institute said, this is a unique, one-time event, best understood as an incomparable societal problem rooted in the early stages of our Nation's transformation to the digital economy. That is why it is so important that we do the right thing on this legislation. Without this legislation, it has been estimated by legal experts that the litigation surrounding the Year 2000 could be in excess of $1 trillion. If this bill does not prevent economic damage recoveries, injured plaintiffs will still be able to recover all of their damages and defendant companies will still be held liable for the entire amount of economic damages that they cause. Additionally, all personal injury claims are exempt from this legislation. This is the time for Congress to act to protect American jobs and industry, and that is what this bill does. The goal of Congress should be to encourage economic growth and innovation, not to foster predatory legal tactics that will only compound the damage of this one-time national crisis. Congress owes it to the American people to do everything we can to lessen the economic impact of the worldwide Y2K problem and not let it unnecessarily become a litigation bonanza. In summary, in the State of the Union address, President Clinton urged Congress to find solutions that would make the Year 2000 computer problem the last headache of the 20th century rather than the first crisis of the 21st. This legislation accomplishes that objective. It is good legislation. We should get a unanimous vote for it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I want to thank the very distinguished gentleman from Missouri for finding a way to bring this resolution to the floor. We ought to be proud of what we have done. Nineteen nations worked together cooperatively to stand up for the freedoms that we enjoy and to stand up against thuggery. The Kosovar Albanians had been denied virtually every freedom that we take for granted in this country since 1989, but that is not why we got involved. We got involved because we knew a war criminal had 40,000 troops massed on the border, was going to go into Kosovo and was going to burn homes, oftentimes with people in them, rape women, execute men, that is what he would have been able to do in order to clear their country of people based purely upon their ethnicity. That is wrong. The free nations of the world stood up and were successful, and in the process they showed that we can prevail without the loss of one American soldier, sailor or airman. We were successful with an air war when people said it could not be done. We were successful in putting strength and resoluteness in NATO. This set a precedent. We should be proud of what we have accomplished. And we should tell the rest of the world that we are proud in a bipartisan manner. That is what this resolution is all about. It should be passed unanimously.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleagues what we are talking about are young girls, young girls in trouble, young girls who are unmarried, young girls who invariably, according to the statistics, have been impregnated by older men exploiting them. We are talking about situations that are not common. It is common for parents to be responsible, to be nurturing, not to be punitive, but that is not always the case. I do not think we should be legislating morals when we do not know the individual circumstances that may apply. I think we should leave this to the States. We should not have legislation that is as punitive as this. I think it is regressive, and I would hope we would vote against it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I totally agree with that, but I think the gentleman also agrees, our job is not to pad the pockets of the trial lawyers but it is to prevent problems from occurring and to ensure that we represent what is in the best interests of the American economy and the American society. Sometimes there is a conflict between those two. But I agree with what the gentleman said, and I hope that we can be in agreement when the conference report comes back on the floor.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that when we get into conference, that we support as much as possible the principal elements of the House bill, because the House bill makes common sense. A special committee of the American Bar Association was put together to look at the potential Y2K litigation. They concluded that the potential cost of litigation on Y2K could be more than asbestos, breast cancer implants, tobacco and Superfund combined. They concluded that the litigation cost associated with Y2K could be as much as $1 trillion. Now, if the cost of fixing the problem is only a small fraction of that $1 trillion, do we not have a responsibility as representatives of the American people to try to fix the problem, to avoid injuries, damages, problems before they occur? We do not want to wait, do we, until January 1st of the year 2000 and then get into a long, extended legal battle in every part of our economy and our society? We have a responsibility to fix the problem. When we talk about punitive damages, basically the lesson is, ``Go and sin no more.'' That is the lesson we want to tell people. But the fact is, this is a one-time occurrence. The same rules do not apply. We have got one serious situation and it arises by virtue of the fact we are in a technology revolution, things have changed, we have got to get over this change in dates. We can do it, we can do it responsibly, we can avoid spending $1 trillion to accomplish nothing, or we can do the people's will and prevent problems before they occur. Let us do the right thing. I would hope we would get a conference report that would resemble the House bill as much as possible.

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. The answer is yes, I think we all will and we all should.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, the flag symbolizes our Nation, its history, and its values. We all love the flag, I think, equally. That is not what this debate is about. The flag is our national symbol of pride, of unity, and of freedom. Many of us have family or friends who died defending it, and so we have to be heard on this. So this becomes deeply personal. I think what they really died for were the freedoms embodied in the Bill of Rights that the flag represents. We can and should be incensed when the flag is burned or defaced. We have a responsibility to protect the flag. That is why I have cosponsored the Flag Protection Act which was introduced by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). This legislation would protect the flag by punishing those that burned or defaced it. This bill would also punish any person who steals our flag or commits trespass in order to do damage to one. The Bill of Rights is one of America's greatest gifts to mankind. For over 200 years, the First Amendment, which protects our freedom of speech and expression, has never been amended. Amending the Constitution, I think, is the wrong way to protect the flag. I urge my colleagues to support a statutory approach which would protect the flag without doing violence to what it stands for. We need a tough law consistent with our Constitutional responsibilities that can be enacted in a timely fashion and can accomplish what we want without compromising the integrity of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the child safety lock amendment. This is truly a bipartisan amendment and as an original co-sponsor of child safety lock legislation in the 106th Congress, I would like to thank my friend and colleague from Virginia, Tom Davis, for introducing and supporting this amendment. This amendment mirrors language already passed in the Senate. The National Center for Health Statistics reports that each year more than 500 children under the age of 17 are killed unintentionally by a handgun. This amendment would allow gun owners to choose whether they use safety locks; The amendment simply requires that they buy one. Many of these locks can be used on loaded guns and can be disengaged in a matter of seconds which as Gun Tests magazine explains ``conveniently preserv[es] access to guns used in self-protection.'' How can reasonable people be opposed to making these safety mechanisms available to gun owners when a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self- defense? Many young violent criminals rely on guns found in their home to commit crimes. In fact, nearly 7,000 violent crimes each year are committed by juveniles with guns found in their home. The use of safety locks will restrict their access to these guns, and could also discourage the theft of guns that are locked up. Nobody pretends that child safety locks are a cure-all to the violence that afflicts our kids. But this amendment is an excellent step in the right direction to increase safety significantly. Child safety locks could prevent more than one-third of the deaths from gun- related accidents, not to mention countless suicides and violent crimes. Automobiles are required to have seat belts. Aspirin bottles are required to have child-resistant packaging. Lighters are required to have child safety devices. It is time for the guns in American children's homes to have child safety locks. I urge you to support this amendment that will literally save children's lives.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment. It is the wrong thing to do. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), I know that he appreciates democracy, and I hope that he realizes that the people of the District of Columbia have exercised that democracy in a legal manner. They reacted to the fact that 84 percent of the homicides in this District come from firearms. Well, now, in the last 10 years the District's homicide rate has gone down to the lowest it has been. It has fallen 41 percent from 1994 to 1998. Now, what this law would do is to allow gun shops to be set up again, to allow people to bring more handguns in. It is going to allow explosives. This is the Nation's capital. With all the terrorism, threats that we have, to allow explosives to come back into the city. The people of the District of Columbia knew what they were doing when they passed that law. Now to say that we know best, coming from a rural area that has a very different economy and society and situation than the District, to impose the gentleman's opinion on the District is wrong. This amendment should be defeated, defeated soundly.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. So much of the debate today has been either/or, either we do gun control or we do character programs, or we put more religion in the schools and so on. For the most part, all of the above is the right answer. We ought not suggest that doing one thing enables us to exclude the other. Values do matter. Character counts. And schools are increasingly the one place where we can really get kids' attention. It is a captive audience. Unfortunately, as we have more and more families both of whose parents are in the work force, schools may present the best opportunity to instill an appreciation and respect for the values that, in fact, have made this country great, and enable us to live within a civil society. I have seen this Character Counts program. I was impressed with it. I did not think I would be as impressed as I was. It works, the amendment is a good idea, let us include it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. Let me first say that I applaud the intentions of my colleagues in offering this amendment. I share their concern about excess violent programming and the effect it has on our children. I also agree with them that parents should have more information and not be confused about the meaning of various rating systems between TV, movies, video games and music. However, as a strong proponent of the V-chip, I am opposed to this amendment. This amendment could easily destroy the rating sytem that the entertainment industry negotiated with parents groups to work with the V-chip. The V-chip allows parents to control the programming viewed by their children. It works with the TV Parental guidelines developed by the television industry and child advocacy groups. If the TV ratings system is changed, parents will find that they can no longer block violent programming on their TV sets. Because of the very problems that the authors of this legislation are concerned about, Congress passed the V-chip law in 1996. This law requires TV manufactures to meet a deadline of incorporating the V-chip into 50 percent of TV's sold in America in the next two weeks. They are on track to not only do this but to also comply with the 100 percent V- chip deadline of January 1, 2000. If the government steps in to mandate a new rating system after these various industries have begun labeling their products on a voluntary basis, all the progress that has been made to date would be erased. The historic V-chip rating system agreement was reached between the National PTA, the American Academy of Pediatricians, the Center for Media Education, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Elementary School Principals and the Motion Picture Association, the National Cable Television Association and the National Association of Broadcasters. When we passed the V-chip, we agreed to forbear further legislation in this area until it was given time to work. This amendment would undo all of this progress. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we are all entitled to our own opinion on this issue, but we are not entitled to our own facts. The fact is that in 1996, 10,744 people were murdered with firearms in this country. That is more than were murdered with firearms in all 25 industrialized nations combined. In that same year, 106 people died of firearms in Canada. Now, Canadians love to hunt. They probably hunt more than we hunt, but they understand that handguns are not for the purpose of hunting animals. They are for the purpose of killing people. The gentleman suggests that that figure of 13 children being killed every day is not accurate. The fact is, 13 young people, under the age of 19 are killed every day in America. We do not read much about them probably because most of them are killed in the inner cities of our nation but they should matter and they should not be killed because we have made handguns too accessible to their killers and we should pass the McCarthy amendment because it will probably save even a few of those young lives.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues David McIntosh, Tom Davis, Karen McCarthy, Michael Castle and Gary Condit, in cosponsoring the Federalism Act of 1999. This legislation is a logical and necessary extension of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act that Congress passed in 1995. The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act and the Federalism Act we are introducing today, seek to protect and enhance our federalism system of government. The process and discipline we set forth in the Federalism Act will make federal decision makers more sensitive to state and local concerns and prerogatives. Passage of this legislation will mark a milestone in improvements in our federalism system of government. Having served in local government, I know first-hand how even the most well-intentioned federal laws and regulations can disrupt state and local programs and initiatives. Like the landmark National Environmental Policy Act, this legislation establishes a process that includes a federalism impact assessment on both the Congress and the executive branch to ensure that we make more informed and rational decisions on new federal laws and regulations that may affect state and local governments. I will be the first to admit that much of the legislation Congress considers includes some type of federal preemption. I support strong national standards for clean air and water, fair labor standards and public health. Others in Congress may seek to federalize our criminal justice system. All are legitimate preorgatives of the U.S. Congress and under the Supremacy Clause. I do not suggest we return to the days of the Articles of Confederation or endorse State Rights' advocates for a limited federal government. What I do suggest is that we establish a procedure to ensure that Congress is both well-informed and accountable for major actions that preempt state and local governments. We also need to set forth a process that provides the courts with greater clarity on congressional intent when legal disputes arise between federal and state law. I know this legislation is not perfect. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this legislation defines the scope of judicial review and limits the potential for nuisance lawsuits as well as safeguards the rights of Congress to respond promptly to important national initiatives.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to help address one of the most contentious issues in this bill, as it affects four large metropolitan airports. For more than two decades, National, JFK, LaGuardia, and O'Hare Airports have operated with a slot reservation system. It was developed for safety reasons, to limit the number of airplanes serving these congested airports. According to the Department of Transportation, this system is no longer necessary. The technology now in use in our air traffic control system can permit more flights at these four airports without compromising safety, apparently. Earlier this year, the Department of Transportation announced its support of a repeal of the slot reservation system. Some may question that call to repeal the system. I do not believe, though, that adequate consideration was given to the local communities that will be inundated with increased noise as a result of more flights. These communities and the local governments that represent them have made long-term decisions on the assumption that the total number of flights would remain fixed. Congress, in fact, placed in statute the total number of flights per hour at National Airport in return for transferring the day-to-day operations to a local, regional authority that was capable of raising capital to undertake the major improvements that we have seen at National and Dulles International Airport. The local authority, the Washington Metropolitan Airport Authority and the citizens kept their part of the bargain. If a majority of Congress is now inclined to mandate more flights at National and the other three slot-controlled airports, I think it is only fair that the local citizens should have a right to work with the airport operators on finding ways to offset the increased noise that these additional flights will inevitably bring. So in fairness to these communities, any increase in service should be premised on providing the communities adjacent to the airports with an opportunity to revise existing noise abatement programs. The amendment that the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and I are offering would condition new air service at these four airports on the Secretary's approval of a new airport noise reduction program that would include local public input. As part of the noise reduction program, the local airport operators can include restrictions on the use of aircraft originally built for Stage 2 compliance. The amendment also addresses a growing concern about this potential loophole that can be exploited by some airlines to permit older, noisier Stage 2 commercial aircraft to remain in service beyond the December 31, 1999 deadline for Stage 3 compliance. Few are aware that FAA regulations on Stage 3 compliance allow older commercial aircraft to meet those requirements simply by modifying their operational manual and reducing the plane's fuel load. Operating with a reduced weight and fuel load, these carriers can recertify old Stage 2 airplanes to meet the upper noise level range permitted under Stage 3 requirements. Thus, these older, noisier Stage 2 planes can remain in commercial use at an airport with predominantly short-haul traffic like LaGuardia and National that serve smaller communities within a defined perimeter or provide frequent short-distance shuttles to major, larger cities. As a result, these airports could receive a disproportionate share of older Stage 2 airplanes, causing a major increase in aircraft noise. Mr. Chairman, it is not the intent of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, which mandated this Stage 3 compliance, to allow older Stage 2 aircraft with no engine modifications to continue to use our Nation's commercial airports. We need to fix this problem, and the first place to start is at those airports that can anticipate a significant increase in noise and flights. I think this is a reasonable amendment. I think that it finds a middle ground, and I would urge support for it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to give the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) 1 additional minute.