Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to protect the health of America's children, the Children's Environmental Protection Act. In 1996, Congress unanimously passed the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) which requires the Environmental Protection Agency to consider children's exposure to pesticides in food limit pesticide exposure to children. While the FQPA focused on protecting children by ensuring that the food they eat does not contain harmful levels of pesticides, this bill establishes guidelines to help reduce and eliminate exposure of children to environmental pollutants in areas reasonably accessible to children. The bill also requires the collection of toxicity data by the EPA Administrator, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services so that we can begin to understand, with some level of accuracy, the long-term health effects and toxicity of pesticides and other environmental pollutants on children. For too long risk assessments have been performed using the average, robust 170 pound male as a model. As a result, we really have no idea how these chemicals impact a child's system. This leaves our children at risk because their physiology, play habits, and patterns of exposure make them more vulnerable to toxic harm. For example, children breathe in more of an air pollutant per pound of body weight. They eat more fresh fruit by body weight and drink proportionally more tap water, juice, and milk. This bill addresses that problem by requiring that all EPA standards for environmental pollutants be set at levels that protect children. In addition, the Act requires EPA to publish a ``Safe for Children'' list of products, in addition to providing parents and the public with advice on how to minimize a child's exposure to harmful pollutants. This bill also helps families educate themselves about potential threats to their children's health through the creation of a family right-to-know information kit. The kit will include a summary of helpful information and guidance to families and practical suggestions on how parents can reduce their children's exposure to environmental pollutants. This bill will begin to provide the essential information we need to quantify and evaluate the impact of environmental pollutants in children. The more we know about potential risks and the less toxic burden we put on the environment the healthier our children will be. This legislation has been endorsed by Administrator Browner and by several environmental and health organizations. I urge your support and co-sponsorship of this important legislation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we have been privileged to live in a time of unparalleled economic growth. Much of this growth is directly attributable to the high technology sector. The information technology sector contributes a larger share of our gross domestic product than almost any other industry. U.S. firms dominate the world market in both high tech products and high tech services. Over 3.3 million Americans are directly employed in high technology jobs. The workforce shortage faced by the technology sector threatens both our world dominance in the technology sector and our continued economic prosperity. Over the next ten years, the global economy is projected to grow at three times the rate of the U.S. economy. Basic high technology infrastructure needs, in just eight of the fastest growing countries, are expected to reach $1.6 trillion. If the U.S. does not seize the opportunity to supply the goods and services to these emerging markets, others will. But U.S. firms simply cannot compete if they do not have access to a highly trained workforce. There can be no doubt that our current workforce is failing to keep pace with the needs of industry. Some ten percent of high technology jobs are now vacant. U.S. firms who cannot find enough domestic workers are sending more and more contracts overseas. It is incumbent upon us to stop this trend. The 105th Congress helped mitigate this problem by enacting legislation which would raise the annual limit on temporary immigrants who are skilled in jobs for which there are a shortage of American workers. However, we cannot reasonably expect to eliminate the workforce shortage without addressing the crux of the problem: our failure to adequately train and re-train American workers. Existing government training programs have not sufficiently trained or placed workers in those sectors of our economy with the greatest need. To rectify this problem, I am introducing a legislative package to ensure that training programs provide the skills that American employers need by bolstering industry-driven training programs, creating incentives for successful placement, and providing for the special concerns that multi-state regions, such as the Washington Metropolitan Area, experience as they seek qualified workers. The bills I have introduced today are: H.R. , to establish for regional skills training alliances Modeled after the successful Manufacturing Extension Program, this bill recognizes that in rapidly expanding industry, employers are best positioned to identify the skills and knowledge needed for emerging jobs. It would provide matching funds to encourage companies to participate in consortia that would address their industry's specific skill needs. Every dollar in federal support will be matched by a dollar in state or local government support and a dollar in direct industry support. H.R. , to establish regional private industry councils for labor market areas that are located in more than one state This bill allows the Secretary of Labor to establish Regional Private Industry Councils (PICs). PICs play a constructive role in addressing the workforce needs within a state. These organizations, however, are state organizations and not formed to address problems that may cross state lines. To remedy that situation, this bill would allow the Secretary of Labor to certify, and fund, regional PICs that address regional problems. The new PICs would be funded directly by the Secretary of Labor to ensure that they do not take from existing state programs. H.R. , to permit payment of incentive bonuses to certain job training providers that place large percentages of individuals in occupations for which a high demand exists This bill would ensure that the federal government's investment in training is well spent by allowing Private Industry Councils to reward bonuses to training providers with a high percentage of placement. This will help establish a more outcome-based system to ensure that training providers emphasize placing their students. This bill would amend JTPA to allow funds to be used for bonuses for training providers of specific direct training services. This creates an incentive for training providers to provide up-to-date training opportunities that coincide with market needs, and to help place trainees after they have completed their training. H.R. , to allow employers a credit against income tax for high technology job training expenses This bill would offer employers who train employees for information technology jobs a tax credit for 50 percent of the training costs up to $2,500 per year, per employee. The credit provides an important incentive, yet requires that industry bears at least half of the training costs.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was one of the few Democrats to have voted for the Republican-sponsored impeachment inquiry, but I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote no on all four impeachment articles. The President had an immoral and reckless sexual relationship with a subordinate government employee. The President then lied about it under oath and to the American people. But we take an oath as well. We swear to uphold the Constitution, so help us God. The great Founding Fathers, on whose shoulders we stand, would never have impeached a president over charges not related to the President's official duty to protect the national security and interests of the United States. This vote is not about whether Mr. Clinton is subject to the Nation's laws, as has been suggested. Of course he is. Mr. Clinton may still be prosecuted and convicted of criminal wrongdoing when he leaves office, because the President should not be above the law. We are all deeply disappointed with his conduct, but Congress has no constitutional basis to impeach and remove the President over this type of illegal activity. In fact, no matter how strong our desire to punish the President or to condemn his behavior, our constitutional duty requires us to determine the answer to one question only, has the President committed treason, bribery, or other such high crimes. The answer to that question is no. The American people and the Members of this House have heard an awful lot about this sad affair, but perhaps we have not heard enough from the people who would not tell the majority what they want to hear, but rather, what they need to know. No one in this House has received direct testimony from the principal players directly involved. For example, after talking to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) about his particular concern that Betty Currie was used by the President to obstruct justice, a concern which I shared, I asked Betty Currie in the oval office this week directly about my concerns. Unlike the rest of the Members of this House, I was able to gauge her credibility. I found her believable. Her perspective on what occurred is very much different than what we have been led to believe. She suggests what we are doing is horribly wrong, but she was never called to testify before us. We must accept Mr. Starr's report with no independent congressional fact-finding. It is wrong for the Republican leadership to oppose a harsh censure resolution precisely because they know it would pass. Alexander Hamilton said that the danger of a partisan impeachment regulated by the comparative strengths of political parties is wrong. That is what we are doing. Vote no in defense of the presidency and our Constitution.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference agreement. Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill, but it has some very important provisions. I applaud the $1.2 billion downpayment for hiring 100,000 new teachers. This bill begins the task of reducing class size in the early grades to a national average of 18. This provision will help ensure that students receive more individual attention, build a solid foundation in the basics, and help maintain an orderly learning environment in the classroom. This initiative is especially important because the children of the baby boom generation are creating a demographic echo in the classroom. We need new teachers to relieve the crowding and provide the attention each student needs. I regret that the President's school modernization proposal is not in the bill. This initiative could have leveraged $22 billion in bonds to build and renovate schools, which is sorely needed all over this country. However, there are many other important education programs funded in this bill, including child literacy, after-school programs, college mentoring for middle school children, funds for education technology and teacher recruitment, Head Start, and charter schools. Many of the most onerous provisions that had been in the individual appropriations bills have been deleted, including the many, but not all, of the anti-environmental protection riders in the Interior bill. But the bill provides critical funding for clean water, protecting endangered species, and fighting global warming. The omnibus bill includes major increases in health and science research, with a 7-percent increase for the National Science Foundation, and a 14-percent increase in funding for the National Institute of Health to support greater research on diabetes, cancer, and the development of an AIDS vaccine. The bill's increased funding for the Centers for Disease Control will help us fight infectious disease, and improve prevention of leading killers like heart disease and diabetes. Other important provisions include: a 10-fold increase in this country's commitment to fight abusive child labor by increasing the U.S. contribution to the International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labor; funding for 17,000 additional Community Oriented Police Services (COPS) police officers; and $79 million to expand food safety. Finally, I am very pleased that funding was provided for the International Monetary Fund. This funding is essential to avoid letting the Asian financial crisis create a major recession here in the United States. The bill has some flaws, but I think we got a good agreement, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, history has taught us that unchecked ignorance, intolerance and hatred always yields violence. The fact that we have not yet learned this lesson was made strikingly clear this week with the brutal beating and murder of Matthew Shepard, a Wyoming college student. His killers chose Matthew only because he was gay. Mr. Speaker, incidences of violent crime are in fact decreasing in the United States, yet FBI statistics show that this is not so for crimes based on sexual orientation. The time has come to recognize these heinous acts for what they are. They are hate crimes. The time has come to pass the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. We should do it today by unanimous consent. It is tragic that yet another life has been lost to ignorance and intolerance. How many more will be lost by our silence?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was among those who voted against this bill when it came before us earlier this year. I did so primarily because I was concerned that the sanctions in the bill would have adverse impact on our ability to combat religious persecution and other abuses of human rights across the globe. I am pleased that this bill has been amended to address these concerns and I now fully support this legislation. The sanctioning mechanism now gives the Administration a wide array of powerful tools with which to combat persecution. It also provides the flexibility necessary to ensure that our efforts to combat religious persecution do not harm our programs to combat other serious human rights abuses such as forced labor and prostitution, slavery, and female infanticide. I commend my colleague, Mr. Wolf, for his tireless work on this important issue and urge my colleagues to support this critically important bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of bankruptcy reform. I am a lead sponsor of this measure because the system is broken, and it is up to us to fix it. What was once the option of last resort is becoming the preferred option of choice. A legislative fix is vital to distinguish between those who truly need a fresh start and those who want to game the system for personal advantage, those capable of assuming greater responsibility and making good on at least some of what they owe. Mr. Speaker, unless we take the steps now to reform the bankruptcy system, while the economic times are good, we will not have the political resolve to fix it when they are not so good. Trapped in a broken bankruptcy system where they lack the confidence that individual borrowers will be able to honor their payment commitments, lenders and creditors will have no choice but to restrict credit. We cannot let that happen. Restricting credit during a downturn in the economy is exactly the opposite of what should happen. It is exactly the opposite in the national interest. It only deepens the severity of any recession and delays the eventual recovery. Despite this country's strong economy, the rate of personal bankruptcy filings has increased dramatically. Last year, personal bankruptcy filings rose nearly 20 percent. They reached a record high of 1,400,000 filings. Think about it. More people filed for personal bankruptcy than graduated from college last year. What does that say about our country in a time of such prosperity? We can vilify creditors and lenders and mortgage companies and credit card industry. I am glad to see the Truth in Lending Act was modified to include an important pro-consumer provision that I tried to offer here in the House. That provision will disclose the full consequences of paying only the minimum monthly balance. But while many of us would like to blame the credit cards industry for the sharp increase of bankruptcy filings, it is important to note that the credit card industry is not the impetus of the bankruptcy crisis. The vast majority of individuals recognize their personal responsibility they take in using the credit card. More than 96 percent of credit card holders pay their bills as agreed to and only 1 percent ever end up in bankruptcy. This is not an issue about credit cards trying to rip off people. Sure there is some unfairness, but that is not what we are having to deal with. Regardless about how one feels about yesterday's or today's creditors, the key issue before us is that many borrowers capable of repaying some or all of their obligations are not acting responsibly. That is what this is about. It is the principle of moral responsibility and personal obligation. That is why this legislation should pass.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, whether this House votes today for the Democratic alternative, which I prefer, or the resolution that was reported from the House Judiciary Committee, which I will vote for when the alternative fails, this much is clear: The guiding purpose of this inquiry must be to obtain the truth. We must conduct this inquiry in order to give the President the opportunity to acquit himself. And we must conduct this inquiry in a manner that brings honor to this institution, and that keeps faith with the Constitution that we are sworn to uphold. I don't know, Mr. Speaker, what the outcome of the Committee's inquiry will be. I share the hope that I think all fair-minded Americans hold that the President will emerge from this process exonerated and able to renew his effective service. The Congress will carry a heavy burden to show that the President has conducted impeachable offenses, and that the results of two elections should be overturned. But I do know that if we fail to move forward today, we will not be serving the best interests of the President, or, much more importantly, of our nation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Luther) for being here tonight to outline why this bill is so necessary. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be home with my kids, and I know that each of my colleagues would like to be as well. We will go home and we will look at those kids and know that they are well fed and clothed and housed and cared for and nurtured. But that is not the case with hundreds of millions of children around the globe. I would like to share a few of these children that this bill that these gentlemen, along with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who was the principal sponsor on the Committee on International Relations, have cared for who would not have been cared for, who will not even be noticed, unless we provide this money. Mr. Chairman, this is a picture of a girl shining shoes. She works in a shoe shine stand in Ecuador. She cannot be more than 4 years old. She represents the millions of children who work on the streets of the world's cities. Children are sent on to the streets to work or to beg, and while seeking work, they are easy prey. They are given a job, like this girl, shining shoes. They must turn over all the money they receive to an older child, who then gives them a small portion as salary. The older child rakes in profits by exploiting a small army of children. Frequently, though, the older child is in a similar relationship with even older children who control large groups of these children. Those who are beggars may be maimed to make them look more helpless and miserable than other beggars. And as the children grow older, they learn they can make more money by theft or by exploiting children younger than themselves. Here is another picture of the kind of child that this legislation deals with. This is a little girl who works in Aligarth, India, a town on the border of Nepal. This child is making tiny padlocks. The average pay for the children in the metal industry is $6 a month. They work 60- hour workweeks. They are recruited by middlemen, who are paid by the contractor, who prefers children because they are so much easier to control. Although almost all metal factories claim to be family businesses to skirt India's scant child labor regulations, there are virtually no incidences of actual family metal shops in this part of India. These children remove molten metal from molds near furnaces. They work with furnaces at temperatures of 2,000 degrees. Burns are a constant danger. Children also work electroplating, polishing and applying chemicals to metal. This child is polishing padlocks on a small grindstone. Fumes and metal dust are constantly inhaled by these children, which causes tuberculosis and respiratory problems. The last picture of children that this legislation will help this is a little girl. This little girl is hammering rocks. Sometimes in other parts of the world the entire family is working in bondage, perhaps to pay the debt of a deceased relative. Children are required to work alongside their parents to maximize production. They work up to 14 hours a day carrying rocks or breaking them into pieces. That is what this young girl is doing. She lives in an area where gravel is scarce. In order to make cement, rocks must be broken down to small stones. In many rural areas, traditional class or caste systems perpetuate bonded labor. Pledging one's labor and that of his children may be the only resource that a father has and may be all that he can pledge as security for a loan. Unfortunately, this same family may be uneducated, illiterate. It is easy prey for a moneylender who may charge outrageous interest rates. That is why this bill does what it does. That is why the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman); why the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of our subcommittee; why the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Luther); why so many members of the Committee on International Relations and of the body, and really of the staff, know that this bill has to pass. These are just a few of the horrors that exist as we speak. They have to be eliminated. This bill is important. I am sorry it comes up so late at night, but I appreciate the fact that the chairman has brought it up, and I appreciate the time that has been given me by the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Mr. Speaker, in the last four years I can't count the number of times I have been here on the House floor voting on bills, amendments, appropriations riders, and every possible vehicle for so-called anti- abortion legislation. The reality is, every member of Congress is anti- abortion. Every member of Congress wants to make abortion less necessary and eventually unnecessary. By improving access to affordable contraception, the Lowey amendment is an excellent way to achieve this goal. As a founding co-chair of the Congressional Prevention Caucus, I am a strong proponent of using preventive methods to improve the length and quality of human life and also to reduce the skyrocketing costs of health care. On average, women spend 68% more on health care costs than men. Much of these additional costs can be attributed to reproductive health care costs. The use of contraception can help to reduce these costs for women by preventing unplanned pregnancy, an expensive and potentially life threatening condition. Opponents of this amendment argue that 81% of FEHB plans already cover at least one form of contraception and that women federal employees already have a choice of plans. The one form is generally oral hormonal contraception known as ``the pill.'' Oral contraceptives are one of the five most common forms of contraceptive but it is not always recommended to some women who experience negative side effects or may be at higher risk of breast cancer or stroke. Alternatives should be accessible to women who decide in consultation with their doctor that it is a safer option. Ten percent of plans cover no forms of contraception at all. Regardless of the percentage of plans that cover this option and don't cover that option, contraception should be considered basic health care for women of reproductive age. As employers, we have a responsibility to choose what kind of health care we want to provide for our employees. We should be providing this basic preventive care and not forcing our employees to choose a plan that may not be the best plan for them because none of the other plans provide contraceptive coverage. Furthermore, if we are denying federal employees coverage of abortion services in their health plans, as we have since 1995, it would be hypocritical not to make methods to prevent the necessity of abortion as accessible as possible to federal employees. Contraception is a proven method in reducing the number of abortions. A recent study of the use of contraception in the former Soviet republics shows that preventing pregnancy with contraception reduces the number of abortions. In Kazakastan for example, abortion rates have fallen by more than 40% since the change in contraception policy by the government and widespread access to contraception was implemented. As adversaries of the ``abortion issue'' continue to disagree over pro-choice, pro-life semantics, we should be working together on policies that we can agree reduce the necessity of abortion. I urge my colleagues to work together where we can on this terribly divisive issue by supporting the Lowey amendment to provide comprehensive contraceptive health care coverage for federal employees.

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 483 on October 6, 1998 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to support this measure and I would like to express my appreciation to Chairman Lewis and Mr. Stokes for crafting a bill that is both equitable and fair to veterans, homeowners and renters and supporters of cleaner environment. It is never an easy task to establish the right priorities and funding levels for the Veterans Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, but the conferees appear to have done so once again. I would also like to express my appreciation for the spirit of compromise that was reached between the Administration, the authorizing committee and the appropriations committee on legislation that will substantially rewrite public housing programs. Last year the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2, the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act, by a vote of 293 to 132. The public housing reforms contain key elements of H.R. 2, but are responsive to concerns raised by the administration and many low income housing groups. I am especially pleased to see that all parties agreed to retain tough screening and eviction procedures that cover not just public housing but privately-owned publicly assisted housing. As you know, I have a personal interest in the expedited eviction procedure. Unfortunately, it took the tragic death of Alexandria police officer Charlie Hill before HUD began to explore procedures to expedite the eviction of drug dealers from public housing projects. The police and the community knew who the drug dealers were, but every time they attempted to do something, they were stymied by the legal aid advocates. Fortunately, Alexandria was successful and the city's subsidized housing units are a far different place to live in today. The expedited eviction procedure works but it needed to be strengthened further. Today's legislation builds on past efforts by permitting housing authorities to access criminal records for screening and evicting tenants. It also extends these useful tools to private owners and managers of Section 8 housing. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, it deserves strong bipartisan support.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the very distinguished gentleman representing Baltimore for his leadership with regard to Federal employee issues, and particularly with regard to the children of Federal employees, and I thank the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for her initiative on this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Federal Employee Child Care Affordability Act to allow Federal agencies the discretion to use their salary and expense accounts to provide child care for their employees. As my colleagues know, between 1975 and 1994, over a 20-year period, the number of women in the labor force with children under the age of 6 increased from 39 percent to 60 percent. Unbelievable, 60 percent of women in the labor force have children under the age of 6. More than half of children under 1 year of age and more than 12 million children under the age of 5 are regularly in the care of someone other than their parents. A recent study suggests that one-quarter of all Federal employees need child care. That means we are talking about hundreds of thousands of parents and their children. Access to quality affordable child care has become a number one issue for many parents in the United States, particularly Federal employees. So, as a responsible employer, the Federal Government should be working to improve access to and affordability of child care for its employees. In Congress we have been working to find ways to encourage private businesses to do just that. We are not doing a bad job. There are 1,400 private employer-provided child care centers throughout the United States. By comparison, the Department of Defense has 850 centers for its employees and another 230 more for civilian DOD employees. We can do much better by allowing all Federal agencies to provide child care assistance to all their employees. In exchange for being a responsible employer, we also have the added bonus of increased productivity by decreasing missed work hours for child care crises, and the lure of quality affordable child care is a recruitment and retention tool to the most qualified applicants and employees of the Federal Government. DOD has been successful in providing sliding scale fee care on location to parent employees, but other Federal agencies have been strictly prohibited from funding such a program even by simply providing an onsite facility with electricity or furnishings. The Morella amendment would not force agencies to provide care, but would allow agencies to use their funds at their own discretion to provide care or tuition assistance. Because the amendment does not require an additional appropriation, it does not impact the balanced budget, and, in addition, any profits to the facility will be used to make care more affordable for lower income employees. Mr. Speaker, it is a well-thought-out amendment. Over the past several years we have made tough choices along with great progress in achieving fiscal responsibility in the budget. Along with this responsibility we have asked the private sector to do their part in being responsible citizens, particularly as employers by providing benefits such as child care to their employees. It is time for the Federal Government to step up to our responsibility as employers by allowing Federal agencies the discretion to provide child care to their employees, and I urge my colleagues to take this responsibility seriously by supporting the Morella-Cummings-Moran amendment. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on the last vote. Had I been here, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the critical vote on this issue occurred yesterday with the rule, because what we did was to vote to break our own budget rules. It is those budget rules that enabled us to achieve a balanced budget, to turn a projected $300 billion deficit into a balanced budget. We did that because we did not want to be controlled by those rules as responsible as they are. We said that we are not going to pay for this tax cut by reducing spending or by taking it out of the general fund, we are going to take it from the Social Security trust fund. But by breaking those rules, we have also broken intergenerational legacy, where every generation of Americans has inherited a better standard of living from their parents than the prior generation. Yet we are going to pass on to our children's generation $5.5 trillion of debt and an insurmountable Social Security burden, a generational deficit. When I was born, there were 20 workers for every retiree. When I die there will be two. That is not fair. Let us not be so selfish.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the ranking member not only for yielding me this time but particularly for his leadership and the leadership of the chairman of our Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence). There are so many reasons to rise in support of this bill, but, more than any, the underlying theme of this bill is that our Armed Forces are not just about weapons or strategies or technology, but the heart of our Armed Forces are the people who have to operate the weapons, who have to represent us in this country and abroad. This bill is primarily designed to ensure that we can recruit, that we can train, that we can sustain our enlisted personnel, the very best that this country has to offer, and we can also treat military retirees with the gratitude and the respect that they deserve. There is one provision in this bill that I want to underscore, because it does address a situation that has occurred over the years, really since 1956, when the military started to back off what was considered to be a commitment. When people enlisted in the military right up until last year they were told in recruitment literature that they would be entitled to free, quality, lifetime health care. This bill addresses that. It does so initially in a demonstration project. One of those demonstration projects is designed to extend the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and other speakers have said, to military retirees. It is the right thing to do. Two people have died over the past year who spent a great deal of effort, who provided wonderful leadership, particularly for military retirees but also when they were in the military, and specifically over the last few years on this issue: General Pennington, who led the Retired Officers' Association, and Colonel Vince Smith, in my own district. Vince Smith and his wife Edie have worked for 6 years on this provision. These two heroes passed away knowing that this Congress responded to what they knew was a legitimate, and very important, request. With this legislation, we honor their memory and the memory of millions of people, men and women, who have served this country. They deserve the greatest respect we can afford them. They deserve the commitment that this bill entails. They deserve the kind of treatment that we will be able to eventually provide, which does not end when somebody leaves the service, but continues throughout their retirement years. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill we should all support.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, what I would like to focus on is the unparalleled economic growth that we are currently experiencing and why. The principal reason we are doing as well as we are economically is attributable to the high technology sector. U.S. firms dominate the world market in both high-tech products and high-tech services. Over 3.3 million Americans are directly employed in high technology jobs. But the work force shortage faced by the technology sector threatens our world dominance in the technology sector and our continued economic prosperity. Over the next 10 years the global economy is projected to grow at three times the rate of the U.S. economy. Basic high technology infrastructure needs in just 8 of the fastest growing countries are going to reach $1.6 trillion. If the U.S. does not seize the opportunity to supply goods and services to these emerging markets, other countries will. But U.S. firms simply cannot compete if they do not have access to a highly- trained work force. There is no doubt that the quantity and even the quality of our current work force is failing to keep pace with the needs of the technology industry. Some 10 percent of high technology jobs are now vacant. This is nearly 200,000 vacant jobs across the country. U.S. firms who cannot find enough domestic workers are sending more and more contracts overseas. In Northern Virginia, we have a vacancy rate of 19,000. Just pick up the Washington Post any Sunday and Members will see where those vacancies are. We are in desperate need of more workers, and as a result, because we do not have the workers, we are sending jobs overseas, even to fulfill government contracts. We are going over to India, Ireland, and any number of other countries that are willing to meet our needs. But does it not make more sense to pay an American worker here $60,000 a year than to send a job overseas, pay them maybe $16,000, but that money is spent in their economy? We are so much better off if these jobs and these salaries are spent in our U.S. economy. That is what we are trying to achieve. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a substantial improvement. It increases the cap. It is going to enable us to better meet the needs, but it is not adequate. We still need to do more work. I must say, in terms of the training provision, that we cannot continue job training programs in the way that we have done them in the past. They need to be much more tied to industry. They need, in fact, to be industry driven. Let the companies in the technology sector, particularly, get together, cooperate, contribute maybe a third of the money. Let the Federal Government contribute a third of the money. Let universities contribute. And with that consortia, let us make sure that the training that we do is going to be immediately met by job placement. We cannot afford to train just for the sake of training. We need to be putting people in the jobs that are available today.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from the wonderful State of California for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Dollars to the Classroom Act and in support of the Clay substitute. We should be working to ensure that a free quality education is available to all elementary and secondary education students in the United States and one that is as equal as possible so that everyone has as equal a chance as everyone else. That is not the way it is today, and the fact is that the Dollars to the Classroom Act I believe would undermine public education in this country because the basis of the bill is that not enough funding is going directly to the classroom, but the independent, very respected auditors, Coopers & Lybrand, would disagree. In an independent audit of elementary and secondary education programs administered by DOE Coopers & Lybrand found that the Department spends $87 million to administer more than $20 billion in grants to elementary and secondary education. That is four-tenths of 1 percent. These programs include Eisenhower Professional Development Grants for teachers, Goals 2000, et cetera, et cetera, and States can determine how to spend that money as easily as they could with a block grant. I do have concerns about the dissolution of the 31 programs consolidated into a block grant, but I am most disappointed at the lack of consideration for the school districts most in need of federal assistance who would lose title I assistance. The Federal share of funding is only a small percentage, as we know, of the overall dollars spent on public elementary and secondary education because most Federal education funding is raised at the local level through property taxes. High poverty areas are at an automatic disadvantage in funding for their public schools, and title I is their vital funding source to make up for that disparity in funding between public schools in high poverty areas and those in high income areas. Passage of this act would end this important program for those areas with the lowest tax bases. Rather than taking funding away from our public schools the substitute of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) would add additional funding to our classrooms. Under block grants, increases in the student body would be ignored despite the fact that school crowding is one of the most pressing problems. The Clay substitute would reduce class sizes, and it ought to be supported.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am going to support this amendment, but I hope that it is the last time that I or any of us have to do this. This provision has been the Congress' response to a difficult complex issue year after year, and yet we see no real progress. We cannot only blame Azerbaijan. Armenia has to accept some of the blame for insufficient progress as well. One of the realities that we have to understand is that Azerbaijan is going to be one of the wealthiest countries in the world. It is not landlocked, as Armenia. It is not nearly as economically and militarily vulnerable as Armenia. In fact, it is going to be a major role player in the Caucasus in that part of the world. So it behooves us in the future to, in fact, be an ally of Azerbaijan. The reality is that we cannot under these current circumstances. But if we want peace in the Caucasus and protection of Armenia's sovereign borders and prosperity for the Armenian people, then we need to establish economic trade between Armenia and its neighbors on all sides. The situation today is untenable. In fact, there are people suffering in Armenia. There are people suffering in Yerevan, there are people suffering in Nagorno-Karabakh. But we must be part of the solution, not part of the problem. And part of the problem is that we have not moved forward. We have not been able to take sufficient initiatives. We have not been able to bring together the people in a sufficiently constructive attitude. I understand the frustration of the people in the State Department. They really feel that this amendment is counterproductive, that we have got to be able to assure the Azeris that there is a level playing field, that we are not playing favorites because of domestic politics. There is reason for them to believe that and to make that charge. But it is also true that they eventually will be holding the upper hand. They do have it in their means to find a way to relieve much of the economic suffering that the Armenians are encountering. They do have it in their means to move the Minsk peace process forward. I would hope that this is the last year that this is the only approach that this Congress can take, which is to continue essentially an embargo that, in fact, is hurting Armenians as well as Azeris and that is not consistent with the way we have resolved past conflicts. Mr. Chairman, I very much respect the people who want to lift 907, but I also respect not only the insight but the compassion of those who feel that this is not the time. I am just saying for the record that if this comes up again, I do not think it is the responsible decision for the Congress to simply stick with the same old response to a problem that continues to fester and is not getting any better, without initiative on the part of this Congress and those who understand the situation and who believe that peace and prosperity is possible and will only occur if we are willing to take the necessary political and diplomatic risks for that peace and prosperity to overcome the age-old animosities that have precluded it in the past.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful to the very distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Committee on Appropriations as I am to the generosity of the chair of that committee. I rise in support of the Pelosi amendment. Our economy is doing well right now, but as Alan Greenspan said, we cannot forever be an oasis of prosperity. A full 30 percent of our economy is tied to international trade. For better or worse, we are the leader of the world economy. Much of that economy, particularly Russia, Asia and now Latin America is in trouble. If the IMF lacks the funds to stabilize foreign currencies and markets, there will be no market for that one-third of our products and services, we sell overseas and they will be in such a desperate position they are going to be dumping their products on our market, causing serious economic disruption. Our inventories will build, grain elevators will fill and factories will go idle as workers are furloughed or laid off. These economic and strategic concerns are of paramount importance for the Congress to debate. And so it is wrong for the leadership to refuse to permit the full House to consider the IMF bill that passed the House Banking Committee by a vote of 40-9. The IMF is not some part of a rogue international conspiracy. It is an institution born of the ashes of World War II, born by the United States and the people who formed this strong economy throughout the civilized world. The reason why the international economy is as strong today is because we started things like the International Monetary Fund after World War II to make sure we did not go through another Great Depression that formed the basis of World War II. We can never repeat these mistakes. We have to learn from these mistakes. The IMF is critically important. Sure there are reforms that need to be made, but that does not mean that the IMF is not essential to the productivity and to the economic stability, to the jobs and to the well-being of all American citizens. We ought to be debating it. We ought to pass it. We ought to restore funding immediately to the International Monetary Fund.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to cut funding to the Army School of the Americas. This school has an infamous history, one that still haunts us today. In the past, the school literally taught military personnel how to oppress their people. We have all heard the shameful statistics on how many of the worst human rights abusers in Latin America were trained at the Army School of the Americas. For example, nineteen of the officers cited by the U.N. Truth Commission for the murder of Jesuit priests in 1989 were graduates of the School of the Americas. People in Latin America still suffer from School of the Americas graduates today, particularly in Colombia. Just this year, three human rights activists were murdered in Colombia by a member of a brigade commanded by a graduate. A human rights report implicated 40 high- ranking Colombian military officers who attended the school in mass murder and disappearances. Bishop Juan Gerardi was brutally murdered after releasing a report on human rights abuses in Guatemala that linked School of the America graduates to those abuses. Supporters say that the curriculum of the school has changed. But the world has changed as well. Now that many Latin American countries have turned away from military dictatorship to become democracies, we do not need to have military relations as the cornerstone of bilateral contacts. Military relations should no longer be the focus of the new, constructive U.S. relationship with fragile Latin American democracies. We can still pursue the same kind of military-to-military contacts we have with many countries around the globe, without having this school. Cutting the funding for the Army School of the Americas sends an important signal that the United States is repudiating the policies of the past.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the very distinguished ranking Member of the Committee on Appropriations for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I also thank the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for those last words that the chairman uttered. They are music to our ears. The chairman committed himself to assure that these appropriations bills, all of them except military construction, which is now on the President's desk and we assume would be signed, those other bills will, in fact, get passed; no government shutdown, no delaying the government, getting the Congress' business done when it needs to be done. I understand that the principal reason why our appropriation bills have been delayed, at least from a procedural standpoint, is that this is the first time, since the budget act was passed, that we have no budget resolution. It was due April 15. So it has been very difficult for the Committee on Appropriations to fulfill its responsibility when we have no budget resolution. This CR is the right thing. I hope this is a precedent to have an appropriations bill, a continuing resolution which does not have any of the divisive issues, which is not designed to cause the President to veto it, which is simply designed to enable the government to function in the proper way. It shows it can be done. My fear is that we will get to October 9 and despite the best efforts of the Committee on Appropriations, Members will add things in appropriations bills that were not designed to enable the government to carry out its proper role but instead were designed for purely partisan political purposes, knowing they would force the President to veto any of those individual appropriations bills. At least if we have a continuing resolution, it should be similar to this bill today, one that will enable the government to continue functioning. The worst thing we could do is to shut down the government, to have a repeat of 1995. None of us want that to happen, particularly in the context that we are currently operating. So it is incumbent upon the leadership of the Committee on Appropriations, but most importantly the Members of Congress who may have ideas that they think are meritorious but in reality would only cause the government to stop functioning to keep our appropriations bills clean. Another government shutdown is the one thing that must be avoided. So let me just thank the leadership on both sides of the aisle for this continuing resolution. I trust it will be passed unanimously, and I trust that it is a precedent for the kind of bipartisan cooperation that serves this Congress well but most importantly serves this nation well.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant opposition to this bill. I agree with the sponsors of this bill that we must do more to combat the trade in illegal drugs. We need to increase our interdiction efforts. We must step up our efforts to eradicate drugs at the source. We should increase our cooperation with other nations and assist them in proper training of law enforcement officers. I also support redoubling our crop substitution efforts. However, the substantial changes in U.S. policy made by this bill deserve proper consideration by the authorizing committees. This bill was initially referred to five committees, none of which held a hearing or a mark-up. This bill was re-drafted behind closed doors this week and was shared with Democrats only at the last minute. Seat-of-the-pants legislating may make for good politics in an election year, but it also makes bad law. For example, this bill authorizes new equipment purchases but fails to adequately fund its operation or maintenance. Oversights like this can be easily addressed by the authorizing committees if they are given the chance. Furthermore, I am opposed to the provisions in this bill which further reduce the role of the State Department in this growing international problem. Specifically, this bill will transfer the Bureau of International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement Affairs from the State Department to the Drug Enforcement Agency. It may be true, as the sponsors claim, that narcotics control assistance is better conducted by law enforcement agencies than by the State Department. But I do know that the State Department is better equipped to deal with issues of international stability and diplomacy. For example, this bill threatens a tentative peace by withholding assistance if the Colombian government agrees to a demilitarized zone with its insurgents. Disrupting the peace process will weaken the Colombian government and will hamper its ability to effectuate strong, sensible narcotics control programs. It is critical that the State Department retain its seat at the table if we are to adequately consider the effects that our drug control policy has on the stability of other nations and the ability of those nations to cooperate with us as partners in these efforts. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I wonder about the timing of this bill. We always seem to consider major counter-narcotics authorization bills just prior to election day. I'm sure that it is merely coincidental, but I wonder why we've chosen to focus on these authorization bills when the real problem we face in narcotics control is that Congress fails to adequately fund existing programs. If no one proposed full funding of counter-narcotics programs when we considered the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Bill just six weeks ago, does anyone really think passing this bill will result in greater appropriations and greater counter-narcotics efforts? For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, with so much legislative business left to conduct this session, there may be some who are wondering why we should care about Slobodan Milosevic. We should care because on March 23, 1989, Slobodan Milosevic unilaterally changed the Yugoslav Constitution, revoking the autonomous status of Kosova. We should care because, in a referendum held in 1989, 87 percent of those Kosovars eligible to vote approved independence by an overwhelming 99 percent. We should care because two of the most devastating wars in history began in the Balkans. But most importantly, Mr. Speaker, we should care because Slobodan Milosevic has initiated his second genocidal campaign to maintain his dictatorship through terror. When Milosevic sought to tighten his grip in Bosnia the world stood by and watched. We watched as Milosevic drove three million Bosnians from their homes. We watched as Milosevic ordered the killing of more than 250,000 Bosnians. And we watched as Milosevic directed the rape of 40,000 Bosnian women and girls. How long will we watch in Kosova? Although 90 percent of Kosovars are ethnically Albanian, Milosevic has denied them entry to schools, he has denied them access to jobs, and he has denied them access to government. By instituting his own police force, he has entrenched his generals of genocide in every Kosovan community. A recent Washington Post story tells of one home in Kosova. The home was burning to the ground. Reporters saw Milosevic's police force running from the scene. When asked how the fire started, one officer grinned and replied that the house was burning ``Because it was made of wood.'' The Butcher of Belgrade is at it again. By inciting the worst elements of Serbian nationalism and by exploiting existing tensions between Albanians and Serbs, Milosevic has driven as many as 200,000 Kosovars from their homes. Mass graves are again common in the Balkans. Civilians are being butchered when they can be caught and terrorized when they escape. There can be no doubt that Milosevic has proven he is unworthy of stewardship over this place. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that he is held accountable for these atrocities and that he never commits them again. Mr. Speaker, if we believe people have the right to be safe and secure in their homes--if we believe people have the right to live free from the fear of being murdered or raped because of their race--then we must stop this madman. I urge my colleagues to join me in strong support of this resolution.