Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I do know that. In fact, I spoke to that when the tax bill came up to that very provision. It was the Matsui provision, as I recall, on capital gains. We had to change that because it applied to small capitalized companies. But in the next tax cut bill, there was a Medicare revenue increase where we also had to waive the rule.

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the very distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for yielding me this time and for leading the debate on our side of the aisle today and for her support for this program. This is a neat, wonderful concept, and it is something that we can agree on, which also says a lot as well. We ought to be looking for more of these ideas. It is a testament to the strength of the human spirit, this program. It has taught a couple of things. One is that poor people would much rather that we give them loans than grants, that we have confidence in their ability to pay money back, that all they really need is a little seed money to get started. The second thing it teaches us is that the most underused economic resource in this world are the women of the world who have always been doing most of the work but very seldom have they ever had any real control, particularly economic control, over their lives. So the programs that work are the ones that go out and find the women in the villages that know what is going on and have the fortitude and the determination to provide for their families and give them the resources. Boy, the ideas that they come up with and the kind of effort that they put into these little microenterprise efforts, they are just heartwarming. It should be known also that these microenterprise banks charge a lot of money in interest, a lot of them, more interest than we would want to pay. Yet, invariably, the vast majority of these loans get paid off. It is just unbelievable what people can do with just a little seed money if given the confidence and the resources. So I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and all the others on the Republican side and certainly the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), our ranking member, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), and all of the members of the committee. We have got a good thing going here. It costs us very little money. The only people that seem to have some reluctance about this is the White House. I read their statement of administration policy, and I cannot really figure out what they are trying to say and what their objection would be. But I am sorry that they do not get fully behind this, because they have done a lot to make microenterprise programs work. They should have endorsed this piece of legislation. But I know that they are going to fully fund it, and they are going to get behind it, particularly USAID, and make it work. We cannot always control the situations, and we have had some real catastrophes that have prevented people in Third World countries from being able to pay back their loans. Bangladesh comes to mind. So we need some provision to make sure that money is available. This provides that. It ensures that there is going to be this revolving fund available. This is the right way to do it. We are institutionalizing it. This is going to get a unanimous vote, I hope, and it deserves one. The people of the Third World, to take advantage of this, deserve the little seed money that this provides to them.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield for just a moment, we men have always known that; it is just seldom that we ever admitted it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution congratulating the people and government of El Salvador on the free and democratic elections held last month. The people of El Salvador know that the transition to democracy is rarely easy. However, in only a few short years, El Salvador has made great progress. Both international and domestic observers agree that the recent multiparty Presidential and Vice Presidential elections were free and fair. These elections showed the strength and diversity of El Salvador's new democracy. They showed that political parties can engage in the type of substantive, peaceful debate that would have been unheard of only a few years ago. But the demands of democracy do not stop with free elections. El Salvador has shown a commitment to democratic ideals by embracing a free press, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. Because there is no government in the world today that couldn't benefit from improvement, I encourage the people and government of El Salvador to seize upon their recent success and work toward improving their new democracy and the rule of law. Mr. Speaker, dozens of nations are at a crossroads today. Because democracies are not always neat and tidy, many will be tempted to take the easy path. But the easy path leads toward authoritarianism and inevitably to exploitation. The path toward democracy is sometimes difficult and it is often unsightly. But El Salvador's success stands out as an example of what can be accomplished by choosing the path toward democracy. Today we congratulate those who have made democracy possible in El Salvador.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, boy, this discussion has been heartening, because what I hear on the other side of the aisle is that they agree with the thrust of the Democratic budget resolution, which is that no net tax cuts or additional spending should be passed until we extend the solvency of social security and Medicare. That is really the only major issue on which we have disagreed. Now I hear from the other side of the aisle that we really do not disagree on that. That is what this resolution said, and simply, no tax cuts until we extend the solvency. Now, we are told by independent, objective actuaries, ones that the other side uses as well as we do, that the Republican budget resolution does not extend the solvency of social security or Medicare for even one day. That means that we will go back to the drawing board together and come up with a proposal that we both agree on that will extend the solvency. This is an intergenerational responsibility. Our parents met that responsibility. Not only did they win a war and ensure freedom for us, but they gave us the foundation of prosperity, which was fiscal responsibility. That is all we are suggesting we should do for the next generation. Let us not use up all the trust funds for our own purposes. Let us not give ourselves tax cuts that we do not necessarily need, as much as we would like them, until we make sure that the next generation is going to experience as high a standard of living as we are experiencing. That is the least we owe them. That is all our resolution does is to say, let us do our homework first before we give ourselves a big additional allowance. It is an intergenerational responsibility. It is what America ought to be all about. I am glad that the Republicans agree, no additional tax cuts until we extend the solvency of Medicare and social security. Now we can agree, we can move forward and do the people's business.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, not only does this Republican budget resolution not fund military pay raises, but on a party line vote they refused to treat civilian Federal employees the same as military employees as has been done for 50 years. It breaks a precedent, it is not fair to any Federal civilian employees around the country. It is a resolution that should be defeated. Mr. Speaker, when the budget resolution was before the committee last week I offered an amendment which would have ensured that federal civilian and military employees received equitable and fair pay raises for the next ten years as they have for the last fifty years. I expected that the amendment would be noncontroversial and pass. After all, the President recommended a 4.4 percent increase for military and civilian employees, and the Senate recommended a 4.8 percent increase for both. So, I was surprised by the vehement objections raised by those on the other side of the aisle. It failed on a party line vote. Yesterday, I learned why. You see, House Republicans do not support a fair pay raise for either the civilian federal employees or the military. They did not include any funding above the baseline for either the military or civilian retirement trust funds--funding which would be required if they favored a fair pay raise. They couldn't afford it because of their $779 billion tax cut. Mr. Kasich admitted this yesterday. Mr. Speaker, federal employees have contributed over $220 billion toward deficit reduction in the last decade in foregone pay and benefits. The sacrifices made by our military personnel in the name of deficit reduction have been significant. We have downsized more than a quarter million civilian Federal employees over the last year, so those remaining must work much harder with far fewer resources. The time has come to restore fair and equitable pay raises for these men and women who have dedicated their careers and, for many, their lives to serving their country.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, if this was our parents making this decision, they would not be giving themselves an $800 billion tax cut. They would be providing for the retirement security of their children, they would pay down the debt that they incurred, they would fully fund the military pay raise, they would fully fund the education of their children, they would do right for America and make sure the next generation of Americans is better off than their generation and the benefits that they incurred from their own parents. We have a progressive legacy, let us keep it. Let us not be so selfish and give ourselves a tax cut. Let us take care of our kids first.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I plan to yield time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) as well because we want to address fiscal responsibility because we firmly believe that our budget is the more fiscally responsible. Mr. Chairman, what we have been presented by the majority is the baby boomer budget. As my colleagues know, the real reason why we have this prosperity is because our parents put their lives on the line for democracy and free enterprise. That is why we live in a free and prosperous world. And now, we the baby boomer children must decide what we are willing to sacrifice for our children's future. So what have we done with this opportunity? Mr. Chairman, one of the things we have done is to build up a $5 trillion public debt that we are about to leave to our children. The critical test of the baby boomer generation is, are we going to be as responsible to our children as our parents were to us? Mr. Chairman, the answer is no if we do not pay down the Federal debt. The answer is no, as well, if we do not provide for their retirement security. That is why it is important to extend Medicare and Social Security. But the budget that we have been presented with by the Republicans says after we die, after we have exhausted Social Security, there is nothing there left for our kids. It is exhausted in terms of Medicare in 2008; in terms of Social Security, by 2032. That is it; we have used it, we are set, and then it is up to our kids to take care of their own retirement security and to pay down the Federal debt. That is why this budget, the one we are offering, is the far more responsible one because it reduces the public debt, it provides for the retirement security of our kids, and it also provides for the investment that our kids need to be able to fulfill their potential. It puts money into education, it puts money into training, it enables them to live in a safe environment. This is by far the more responsible budget, the one that sustains the intergenerational legacy our parents left to us. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I have to rise in opposition to this resolution. There are several reasons why I think this further complicates the peace process. For one, it does not condemn unilateral acts by both Israelis and Palestinians, but only the Palestinian authority. The House leadership brought it up under suspension of the rules, so there are no amendments that would make it a more balanced bill. The committee refused to consider an amendment that would have achieved that objective, and so the perception is going to be that we are acting in a biased, unbalanced manner even though our intelligence community, as the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations has said, has reported that the Palestinian authority is doing everything it can right now to comply with the Oslo requirements. We are in a terribly delicate situation. I do not think that it is in anyone's interest to declare a Palestinian state on May 4. For one thing, it plays into the hands of the right wing elements in Israeli politics with elections occurring in 2 weeks. For another thing, it means that Mr. Arafat is going to find it much more difficult not to declare Palestinian statehood because it is going to look as though he is bowing to the pressures of the American political system. That is not in our interests. Mr. Arafat is our best hope right now, like it or not, for advancing the peace process. We all have a stake in advancing the peace process. If Mr. Arafat goes, who knows who will take control of the Palestinian community? The likelihood is that it will be someone far more radical and extreme. We have lost King Hussein, a leader of the peace process; we lost Mr. Rabin. We cannot afford to lose a Palestinian leader who is now fully invested in bringing about a successful conclusion to the Mideast peace process. Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with the sponsor of this resolution or the chairman of the committee who I know want the peace process to succeed, but I do disagree with their judgment that this is constructive. I do not think it is constructive. I do not think that the resolution that we passed in June of 1997, even though that also was nonbinding, was constructive. In fact, it led to riots, it led to people being killed. The actions that we take have real consequence, even though they may be nonbinding. The only hope for peace to succeed is that we be an unbiased, balanced broker for peace in the Middle East. It is particularly important right now that we sustain that principled effort and not bow to domestic political considerations.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the District of Columbia Court Employees Whistleblower Protection Act of 1999 (H.R. 858). My colleagues, this is important legislation. It deserves strong bi-partisan support. As my good friends Tom Davis and Eleanor Holmes Norton acknowledge this legislation is important to correct an error that has permitted employees of the District's Superior and Appeals Courts to operate without any whistleblower protection. The error was probably an oversight. As part of home-rule back in 1971, Congress fused the functions of state and municipal court functions to produce the D.C. Superior Court and the D.C. Court of Appeals. Both courts are funded by the city, but their judges are nominated for 15-year terms by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Apparently no one sought or succeeded in extending the District's merit protection laws to court employees. As a result, court employees have lacked the same whistleblower protections all other district government employees receive. Unfortunately, it took a series of troubling events to bring this issue back to the attention of Congress. Last fall, I was contacted by several court-appointed attorneys handling both criminal and child abuse cases who indicated that they were not being paid because the D.C. Superior Court was running out of money. Some of these billable hours remained unpaid for up to 6 months. From these initial calls, it became apparent that the Superior Court was facing a severe financial crisis. Probing further a number of charges were raised about the Court's financial management practices. These charges range from mismanagement to specific misdeeds. On September 22, 1998, D.C. Appropriations Chairman Charles Taylor and I asked the General Accounting Office to conduct an audit of the Court's financial and personnel practices. In response to reports that some court personnel were reluctant to cooperate with GAO's audit for fear of retaliation, I joined Reps. Tom Davis and Ernest Istook on January 26th of this year in a letter sent to Chief Judge Eugene Hamilton asking him to ensure that no court employees were retaliated against for cooperating with GAO auditors. Judge Hamilton has assured us of his cooperation, but reports on employees' fear of retaliation have continued. It is for this reason, that we are now compelled to move forward with whistleblower protection legislation. It is my sincere hope that the Court will receive a clean audit, but it is critical Congress and the residents of the District of Columbia have full confidence that their courts operate with sound financial and personnel practices. This legislation will help give us the confidence these goals are attainable.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition for a point of order that, because the gentleman is amending the portion of underlying text that has already been amended, this amendment is out of order.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri to explain the impact of the amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) listed two amendments, one that would not allow U.S. forces to be deployed to Kosovo unless there is an agreement between the two sides, a second that would say that U.S. forces could not be deployed unless there is agreement between two sides and Congress has approved the deployment. I would ask of the distinguished gentleman from Missouri that he fully explain the implications of this amendment, because it would appear that it may be out of order and require a unanimous consent. If the gentleman from Missouri would explain the amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, it is in our interest to engage in Kosovo. It is in our interest because the reason we enjoy world peace and domestic prosperity is that we gain from worldwide peace and prosperity more than any other nation in the world today. If there were war and depression in Europe we would pay the higher price. We are the leader of this free world because we have defined ourselves as a principled nation; because we believe in democracy and free enterprise and freedom of expression and respect for human rights. And because we do more than just believe in it and talk about it. We are willing to stand up for those principles. One might say we do not belong in the Balkans, that we have nothing to do with the Balkans. To say that, though, we would have to conveniently ignore the fact that two world wars were started in the Balkans, but we cannot ignore it because the reason Europe is stable today is that we invested after World War II to make sure that it would not come apart; that it would not be taken over by fascists. We did that through the Marshall Plan. We did it through investing in the European powers, and we did it by establishing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. We established NATO, have invested in it sustained it, and must lead it. The nations of Europe depend upon the strength of our leadership. A free democratic Europe might not exist today if it were not for the United States, and it might not exist as free democratic states in the future if we do not lead through NATO in defense of democracy and human rights. The other countries of the world recognize they have to look to us for leadership. They also have to look to us because we are the principal military power in this world. We have the capacity to enforce peace, and the moral compass to insist that it be a principled peace. We should not be empowering a war criminal, a bully, somebody who has gained power by using the situation in Kosovo to divide Yugoslavia and to appeal to the Serbian peoples' worst instincts. He took away the autonomy of Kosovo in the late 1980s and Milosevic knew exactly what he did. He bred upon the hatred of ethnic fears. He used Kosovo to rise to power and he wants to use Kosovo to stay in power. It is not in our interest that war criminals have that kind of power. As we all know, when one stands up to a bully they back down. This is our opportunity to stand up to that bully. He should not be given the kind of credibility he has been given. He cannot compete with us militarily, and he understands that we are acting out of principle; that if we act, if we lead, the rest of the European powers will follow. He is counting, though, on the U.S. Congress doing the politically expedient thing by tying the President's hands and refusing to stand up to him. We need to do the right thing in Kosovo today because if we do not do the right thing in Kosovo today, tomorrow it will be some place else because other bullies around the world will be empowered by Milosevic's success in Kosovo. They will learn from this that the United States is not as determined, we are not as resolved, we are not as principled that we are not the same Nation that rebuilt Europe after World War II. The fact is we are the same Nation. We must be the same Nation. We must not allow this situation to implode so that we enter the conflict after thousands more people have died and when our troops will be subjected to far greater danger. Do the right thing in Kosovo today.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I do object to the modification of the amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this bipartisan effort to provide greater local flexibility in education programs. I hope passage of this legislation represents a symbolic reversal in the increasing tension between state and federal education administrators, both of whom would like to improve education standards, but sometimes struggle for greater control over resources. I have been in both positions. As mayor of Alexandria, I experienced first-hand the sometimes cumbersome yet well-intentioned federal strings attached to funding. As a Representative to this body, I also see the importance of a national perspective on these issues. I applaud the drafters of this legislation for their attempt to create a framework under which local and federal education initiatives can work in concert instead of acrimony. Education flexibility has already proven successful. In the 12 states in which it has been tested thousands of waivers have been used to enhance education programs and reduce paperwork for the local educational agencies. The best part of Ed-Flex is that the state or local education agency is immediately accountable for improved student performance in response to its administration of waivered programs. In other words, if the programs are not producing results by improving test scores or showing some other form of measurable gains, the state will lose its permission to participate in Ed-Flex. Mr. Chairman, this is a win-win proposal to improve local education authority while cutting back on federal regulations that local educators feel are unduly cumbersome. It will encourage states and local education agencies to be creative in working to improve student performance with the understanding that without improvement they will lose this authority. Finally, Ed-Flex will help us back on the path of working together to provide the best public education for all children in the United States putting an end to the local-federal power struggle that has been too common in education policy. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today marks the 30th anniversary for WTOP Radio as an all-news station in Washington. Since 1969, WTOP has been a prime source of information on major news events. From Watergate to the House impeachment and Senate trial of President Clinton, WTOP has led the way in providing up-to-the-minute news to area residents. From the turmoil of the late Vietnam era through the continuing disruption in the Middle East, WTOP has presented comprehensive, accurate, and timely news coverage. Traffic, weather, and sports are part of the news cycle as well, and all are featured in WTOP's extensive reporting. Congressional activity is a major source of news on WTOP, and Congressional Correspondent Dave McConnell is a well-known and well- respected presence who reports daily on his Today on the Hill broadcasts, often talking directly to members about issues and developments. His is clearly the most professional and reliable source of Capitol Hill news available to the Washington area--even for us members. I ask the House to join me in recognizing WTOP's valuable contribution to the greater Washington area over the last 30 years, and in my hope that the station will continue to provide us with around- the-clock news for many years to come.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the many African Americans who, through personal sacrifice and unyielding perseverance, have had a vital role in shaping our nation. African Americans have made countless contributions throughout the history of the United States in the arts, sciences, literature, politics and in the military. They have made these achievements while working under extremely adverse conditions. In Virginia, we have a special appreciation for Black History Month and for the contributions of African-Americans to our state and nation. Dr. Carter G. Woodson, considered the father of black history, was born in 1875 in Buckingham County, Virginia. Dr. Woodson originally conceived Negro History Week in 1926 as a celebration of African American achievement. This week of African American recognition later became Black History Month. Dr. Woodson was the youngest of nine children to former slaves. He was largely self taught due to the long hours required of him on his family's farm. Throughout his young adulthood, Dr. Woodson worked to support himself while studying. His hard work and discipline culminated in his becoming only the second African-American to earn his doctorate at Harvard. In 1915, Dr. Woodson established the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History to highlight African American contributions to American history and culture. Beginning in 1916, Dr. Woodson began publishing books and information on the African American experience in America. He held teaching positions at both Howard University and Virginia State College. At the end of his life in 1950, Dr. Woodson was working on an Encyclopedia Africana. Dr. Woodson is just one of many remarkable African Americans from Virginia. Other black Virginians have been similarly distinguished. Tennis great Arthur Ashe learned to play tennis on segregated courts in Richmond and went on to become, not only a legend in the sport but also an international human rights leader. Mary Elizabeth Bowser spied for the Union army during the Civil War while a servant in the Confederate White House in Richmond. Henry ``Box'' Brown shipped himself to freedom in 1849 and then went on to become an outspoken advocate for the abolition of slavery. Virginia has contemporary African American heroes as well. Jazz legend Ella Fitzgerald was born in 1918 in Newport News Virginia. Samuel Lee Garvey, Jr. of Richmond became the first African American Navy Admiral in 1962. Samuel Dewitt Proctor, from Norfolk, who passed away in 1997, was a distinguished educator, preacher and speaker. Booker T. Washington was born in 1856 in Franklin County and became the founder of Tuskegee University in Alabama. And I am proud to say that Virginia was the first state in American history to elect an African American as Governor. With the election of Doug Wilder in 1989, our state made great strides toward healing the painful past for all Virginians. Black History month is a wonderful opportunity to reflect on the many contributions African Americans have made to the United States. Looking back over the history of Virginia and realizing the great things that have been accomplished often under harrowing conditions, I am hopeful for the future. Virginians and Americans can do much more for the greatness of our state and country if we take time to find out about one another and then more forward with respect to achieve greatness together. The Association for the Study of Afro-American Life and History has chosen Black History Month 1999 to be time to reflect on the theme ``The Legacy of African American Leadership, for the Present and Future.'' Virginia has a rich history of Black leadership that I am positive will portend a future of continued excellence.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the very distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Relations and his staff. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak to this because King Hussein's passing should not go unrecognized by any of us, because he made a difference with his life and he left a legacy that will shine brightly in the history books. He was a kind and gentle man but also a strong and courageous person. He was a leader in a part of the world and at a time that desperately needed strong and good leadership. It is said that he was very tough, but he was not ruthless. They tell a story of one of his political opponents who worked for years to undermine him, to overthrow his regime. He was jailed and prosecuted, of course. But when he was let out of prison, King Hussein invited him to his home and they sat down and had tea together and discussed their differences. It was that kind of toughness but goodness that sustained his kingdom. The last time I talked with him I wanted to share with my colleagues for a few moments because I think it spoke so much about the man. We went into a very modest house, stucco house that was in construction, certainly did not look palatial. And he sat down, he did not even have a servant at the time, and he poured his tea. And in the course of the conversation, he invited us to visit the palace but he said, ``Make sure you come during the day so you do not wake up the children.'' Because he and Queen Noor had visited an orphanage, and seeing the condition of the children, they were moved to give over their palace, to turn it into an orphanage. They did that. And when we drive up the driveway, this palatial driveway, we have to drive real slow because the children are running around in little scooters, playing, having fun. And when we walk in and see the way that each one of those children were being treated, it reflects how he wanted his people treated, with the kindness and gentleness and respect for all human beings that defined his philosophy. That is why he was so important to all of us. A good friend who lives in Northern Virginia, Najeeb Halaby, was the father-in-law of King Hussein. Mr. Halaby is the father of Queen Noor and the father-in-law of King Hussein. And I know that, given all the conflict and the chaos and the challenge that his daughter has confronted with her partner, that he recognizes that his daughter was married to a great man and that in fact, because of their leadership, because of their legacy, the people of Jordan will spread the message of human rights, respect for all people, particularly women, will in fact move the Middle East into an environment of peace and justice. That is his legacy. We thank him for it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the Bateses were constituents of mine. They were dedicated to this institution and, most importantly, what they knew this institution can do for this country. They were terrific people, fully involved in their community. They gave and they did not take. This is a true tragedy, and I appreciate the fact that it is being recognized by the Senate and now by the House. I will not delay it any further but to say that there are a great many of us who knew Scott Bates and what he stood for and are very proud that he chose to serve this institution.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this is the culmination really of years of determination and dedication on the part of the delegate and gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and of the chairman of the D.C. authorizing committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis). This is in no way critical of the D.C. Financial Control Board, but it is the culmination of a vision. It had to start with fiscal responsibility. It had to be bolstered by economic opportunity. But it also had to include responsible stewardship. We have that responsible stewardship, that leadership, in Mayor Williams. This is a reflection of the fact that those who have worked tirelessly for the District of Columbia truly believe in democracy, truly believe that the citizens of the District of Columbia are capable of governing themselves. This gives them that opportunity, and if in the future we hope to hold the D.C. government responsible for its actions, we can only do that by giving them the authority to make those decisions. You cannot have one without the other. You cannot hold them responsible without giving them the authority to make decisions on their own. This gives them that authority. This is the least we can do for the District of Columbia, and, again, this is what it was all about. It happened a lot sooner than many people expected, but I know that it is what the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) had every confidence would occur, as did the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis). I want to particularly thank them. As I started my remarks thanking them, I conclude my remarks by thanking them and I thank those who have worked along with them to ensure that the District of Columbia will one day be the jewel of our democracy, the true capital city of our great Nation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the very distinguished leader of the Committee on Rules. As he knows, I am proud of that circuitous route to the Congress. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation, and applaud the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for their work on this issue. I was just speaking with the gentleman from California about our joint efforts more than 5 years ago to raise the issue of unfunded Federal mandates to the attention of this body. As one of the first acts of the 104th Congress, we passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, which required a point of order on such legislation. But at the time we missed a golden opportunity to address the issue of private sector mandates. During the debate on the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, I offered an amendment to include the private sector as part of CBO's cost analysis in the procedural point of order. Unfortunately, as it was not part of the original bill that had the new House leadership's blessing, and was not part of the Republican Contract With America, I think that is the only reason it was not passed when it should have been as part of the larger package of legislation. I argued at the time that we were creating a double standard between mandates on the public sector and mandates on the private sector. The line between the private and public sector is oftentimes very blurred. Private companies now compete successfully to offer services once provided exclusively by State or local governments. Privatization has been successful in the fields of transportation, environmental services, health services, education, water and electric utilities. Without today's legislation we would be perpetuating a procedural situation where, under the House rules, we can debate a Clean Air Act amendment or a new medical waste disposal mandate's impact on a municipal power plant or on a public hospital, but ignore its impact on a private utility or privately-owned hospital. Mr. Chairman, there are more than 1,800 municipal, 900 rural electric cooperatives, and 60 State power plants. Should these power plants be treated differently on a new Clean Air Act requirement than the 220- plus investor-owned electric power companies? That does not make any sense. Should we craft a Federal policy affecting 16 million working Americans, in other words, the 4\1/2\ million that are employed by State governments and the 12 million local employees, without knowing what the impact will be on the 100 million workers employed in the private sector? I do not think so. With enactment of today's legislation we will be closing this double standard. We all need to be held accountable for legislation we support or oppose, regardless of whether it imposes a cost on the public or the private sector. Today will help give Congress the tools and the accountability it needs to know the potential economic impact of all the legislative proposals on the private sector as well. I would also want to express my appreciation to the authors of this legislation for including a provision making a technical correction to the original Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. This provision addresses a problem we have encountered with CBO's scoring of State and local mandates. The correction is necessary because CBO has determined that any new entitlement program mandate is exempt from the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act's point of order procedure if there is sufficient flexibility within the entitlement program to offset the new mandate's new State and local costs. For example, on June 10 of 1996 CBO ruled that a point of order would not exist for a proposed cap on Federal Medicaid contributions to States and any other mandatory Federal aid programs except food stamps. The effect of this interpretation was to exempt more than two-thirds of all grant-in-aid, the mandatory entitlement programs, from coverage under the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. What may appear to be an optional Federal mandate program from CBO's perspective, such as expanding Medicaid coverage to pregnant women and children, is not an optional program from the State's perspective. The States cannot cut back, and we would not want them to cut back, programs for pregnant women and children in order to pay for some other program that we newly mandate under the Medicaid program. Section 5 of this bill would correct this interpretation problem by adding a few simple words to the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act to clarify that any cut or cap of safety net programs constitutes an intergovernmental mandate, unless State and local governments are given new or additional flexibility and the authority to offset that cut or cap. This provision has been endorsed by every one of the five major State and local organizations. I am glad it is included. I am glad this legislation is finally coming forth. It is important that we treat the public and the public sectors in a balanced, equitable manner. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of legislation extending Federal Aviation Administration programs an additional six months. I thank the Chairman and the ranking member for taking quick action to ensure that Federal Aviation Administration programs, and the Airport Improvement Program in particular, will not expire at the end of next month. I regret, however, that even with enactment of this legislation, two airports that are entitled to receive more than $20 million in Airport Improvement Program grants will still be unable to receive these funds. In fact, more than $200 million in critical construction projects for National and Dulles Airports, funded in part with passenger facility charges (PFCs), are being held hostage pending resolution of the Aviation Competition Act. At the center of this debate are the rights of one local authority pitted against some members of Congress who want to direct the operations of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. I was prepared to offer an amendment to release these funds and grant approval of the passenger facility charges, but recognize the desire of the Chairman and Ranking member to pass a ``clean'' FAA reauthorization bill. I appreciate the Chairman's willingness to listen to the concerns of the members from this region. I urge the Chairman and Ranking Member to keep the bill ``clean'' in conference. I am deeply concerned about provisions in the Senate bill that take us a step back and bring controversy and invite opposition to this important legislation. I am, of course, referring to provisions about to be considered by the Senate Commerce Committee that would increase the number of flights to the four slot controlled airports. In the case of National Airport, the Senate legislation would add an additional 24 slots to this congested airport and lift the perimeter rule permitting half of these slots to fly beyond the current 1250 mile perimeter restriction. Madam Chairman a change in the perimeter rule would result in a cut back in locations presently served by National within the perimeter and adversely affect the development of the Washington region's three commercial airports. According to studies based on Washington air travel market data produced by the Washington Airports Task Force, every city with flights to National that generates revenues of less than $20 million would be vulnerable to service reductions. Over time, short-range service at National would be displaced and the number of transcontinental flights operating out of Dulles would decline. As those transcontinental flights decline, Dulles would cease to become an attractive destination for international service. The growth and development plans overseen by Congress and the substantial investment made at both National and Dulles by the taxpayers, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the aviation community would become substantially devalued. Madam Chairman, not a day goes by that someone's quality of life is not adversely affected by the constant drum of airplanes taking off and landing at National airport. For their sake, we should not change the rules they have begrudgingly come to accept. The balance that has now been struck between the transportation and economic needs of air travelers and the region's environmental concerns was crucial to community acceptance of the redevelopment of National, now nearing completion. While these communities understand that National is here to stay, they should not be asked to endure additional noise when no compelling public need is served or could be addressed in other ways without altering the slot and perimeter rules. Congress agreed in 1986 to cede control of National Airport to a regional authority who would have ``full power and dominion over, and complete discretion in, operation and development of the Airports.'' In return, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and Maryland agreed to accept operational control of the airports and raise the money necessary to modernize National and Dulles airports. Madam Chairman, the two states, the District and the regions' residents have upheld their part of the bargain. It is time for Congress to honor its part.