Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an extraordinary individual, Lieutenant General Richard A. Burpee, USAF (Retired) on the eve of his retirement from the Retired Officers Association, which has its headquarters in my district in northern Virginia. As I reviewed General Burpee's career, in preparing this tribute, I see that in one way or another, Dick has spent virtually his entire adult life either in or working for the uniformed services. Born in Delton, Michigan, he entered the Air Force and earned his pilot's wings in 1955. For the next six years, General Burpee was an instructor pilot at Bryan and Reese Air Force Bases in Texas. The next few years he served in various staff assignments until January 1967, when he entered the F-4 Program at MacDill Air Force Base Florida, where he served as an aircraft commander. He transferred to the Republic of Vietnam in August 1967 and served at Cam Rahn Bay Air Base until September 1968 as a flight commander in the 391st Tactical Fighter Squadron. During his tour in Vietnam, he flew 336 combat missions in the F-4 aircraft. Following his combat tour, Dick had a succession of challenging assignments, each entailing greater responsibility. Among these were three assignments in Headquarters USAF, in the Pentagon, in operational test and evaluation, director of operations and the assistant director of plans and operations. General Burpee also served in a number of command assignments including, commander of the 509th Bombardment Wing, Strategic Air Command, 1974-75; commander of the 19th Air Division, Strategic Air Command, 1977-79; commander of Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, 1983-85 and commander of 15th Air Force, Strategic Air Command, from 1988 until his retirement in 1990. In between these assignments, he found time to earn his masters degree in public administration from the George Washington University and to attend the National War College. General Burpee is a command pilot who amassed an incredible 11,000 flying hours in various aircraft during his remarkable career. His military awards and decorations include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Distinguished Service Medal With Cluster, Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross With Oak Leaf Cluster, Bronze Star Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Air Medal With 14 Oak Leaf Clusters and the Air Force Commendation Medal. General Burpee is married to the former Sally Dreve Fisher of Fort Worth, Texas. They have two children, Richard A. and Brent A. General Burpee was elected to the board of directors of the Retired Officers Association (TROA) in 1992, and as chairman of the board in 1996. Through his stewardship, the Retired Officers Association played a vital role as a staunch advocate of legislative initiatives to maintain readiness and improve the quality of life for all members of the uniformed services--active, reserve, and retired, plus their families and survivors. I won't describe all of his accomplishments, but will briefly focus on a few to illustrate the breadth of his concern for service people. As chairman, he led the fight to honor the life time health care commitment to servicemembers, which ultimately resulted in legislative authority to reopen the doors of military treatment facilities to Medicare-eligible beneficiaries through an innovative program we have all come to know as Medicare subvention. More recently, he teamed with me and my distinguished colleagues, Messrs. J.C. Watts (Okla.) and William ``Mac'' Thornberry (Texas) to win approval of a demonstration to allow Medicare-eligible service beneficiaries to enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. These programs, when expanded nationwide, will take critical steps toward honoring this Nation's commitment to those who served so valiantly. Also, under his direction, TROA worked tirelessly to provide survivor benefits to widows of retirees, who died before the survivor benefit program was enacted two decades ago, and to restore dependency and indemnity compensation to remarried widows of service-connected disabled veterans, whose second or subsequent marriages terminated due to death or divorce. Finally, he was ever mindful of the adverse effects on morale and retention caused by broken commitments and inadequate compensation and forcefully championed the causes of fairness and equity. His leadership efforts to defeat the imposition of user fees in military health care facilities, to preserve cost-of- living adjustments for retirees and to provide adequate pay raises for active and reserve members are especially worthy of note. As a final thought, as I am sure you will all agree, the word leadership is often applied perfunctorily or to those who do not deserve it. In General Burpee's case, just the opposite is true. He has been, in every sense of the word, a leader in the military, TROA and the entire retired community. Our wishes go with him for a long life and continued success in service to his Nation and especially to those in uniform who he has so admirably led.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today I join my colleagues Mr. Davis and Mr. Wolf to introduce the ``Lorton Technical Corrections Act of 1998.'' As the title implies, this legislation is necessary to correct a few technical issues that have arisen since Congress enacted the ``National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997.'' One provision in the 1997 law of great interest to the residents of south Fairfax was the closing of Lorton Prison and the transfer of the federal reservation to the Department of the Interior. I believe the General Services Administration is in a better position to fulfill the 1997 Act's expressed intent of transferring much of the property back to the Commonwealth of Virginia. The General Services Administration retains both the legal authority to administer a transfer and the expertise to coordinate with Fairfax County, other federal agencies and local governments the property's ultimate disposition and use. The General Services Administration also has the capability to see that the property is properly cleaned of any environmental hazards. The legislation I am introducing today transfers ownership of the property from the Department of the Interior to the General Services Administration. To ensure that future land use is consistent with the wishes of the local residents and the local government, the legislation requires Fairfax County to develop and submit a reuse plan within one year of enactment. The Department of the Interior may, through the Fish and Wildlife Service, exchange surplus land for property that benefits the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Fish and Wildlife Service, for example, has expressed interest in acquiring some portion of the Meadowood property that would be exchanged for land adjacent the Mason Neck Wildlife Refuge that is now held by the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority. While much of the Lorton Property would be reserved for green space and parkland, some portions, particularly those tracks adjacent to the I-95 corridor, could be developed, if such development is called for under Fairfax County's reuse plan. The legislation also establishes a special fund. Proceeds from any land sale for development would be used to cover the cost incurred by the General Services Administration to administer and dispose of the property and finance any environmental cleanup at the Lorton Correctional Complex. With the enactment of the ``National Capital Revitalization and Self- Government Improvement Act of 1997,'' several competing visions have arisen on the appropriate reuse of this property. By granting the General Services Administration the lead federal role, but ultimately relying on Fairfax County, through the public hearing process, to determine its appropriate reuse, the ``Lorton Technical Corrections Act of 1998'' should help bring the successful resolution and closure to the Lorton property.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment to correct a small typo in the way that it was actually typed up. It was typed up quickly. And I think the correction is at the desk.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today I, along with Representatives Mike Castle, Gary Condit, Tom Davis, Karen McCarthy, and Rob Portman are introducing the ``Federalism Act of 1998.'' This legislation will codify two executive orders on federalism: Executive Order No. 12612 issue by President Ronald Reagan on October 26, 1987 and Executive Order No. 12875 issued by President Bill Clinton exactly five years later. President Reagan's executive order helped bring clarity to the division of responsibilities among federal, state, and local governments. President Clinton's executive order sought to reduce the imposition of unfunded mandates on state and local governments. Both executive orders affirmed the need to consult with state and local governments prior to undertaking any new federal agency actions. Unfortunately, it appears that the current administration failed to abide by its own policy, when it issued a new executive order on federalism earlier this year. On May 14, 1998, the administration issued Executive Order 13083 with little or no consultation of state and local officials prior to its issuance. A careful review of this new executive order reveals both substantive and stylistic changes, that from the state and local perspective, present a retreat from the two previous executive orders the new order replaces. On the issue of preemption of state and local laws, for example, President Reagon's executive order sought to limit preemption to only problems of national scope and not common to the states--it should be done only to the minimum level necessary. President Clinton's first executive order on federalism clearly stated that mandates should not preempt state and local law unless health, safety and national interests are at stake. President Clinton's new executive order, however, makes preemption permissible in problems of national and multi-state scope and then expands the list of policy areas provided in his first executive order where preemption is permissible. State and local officials are seriously concerned that the new executive order threatens their current relationship with the federal government and undermines their position and status within our republican form of government. In response to these concerns we need to repeal Executive Order 13083 and provide state and local officials with an opportunity to sit down with the administration and iron out a new policy on federalism. The starting point for drafting any new executive order should be the two existing executive orders. The legislation I am introducing today with my colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, takes us to this starting point. From this starting point, it may be entirely appropriate to consider other legislative changes that strengthen the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act and judicial review of agency actions. But, before we consider these changes, let us agree on preserving the commitments, safeguards and procedures established by both President Reagan's executive order and President Clinton's first executive order on federalism by codifying them as federal law.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this is not an outrageous rule as some have been, but I would rise in opposition to this rule. I can understand that the Committee on Rules, the majority in the Committee on Rules felt that it was doing the right thing in making an open rule, and we certainly appreciate the fact that some of these amendments will not self-execute, but we would have to oppose the fact that the amendments that really constitute poison pills to this appropriations act are protected in it from points of order. These amendments are divisive, they will invariably cause a veto, and we would suggest, as we will in the general debate, that they are not in the best interests of the District of Columbia nor are they appropriate for this Congress to be dealing with in terms of the local funds that ought to be at the discretion of the District of Columbia government. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) just talked about his amendment dealing with needle exchanges. It is a controversial issue. It is one that the authorizing committee should deal with. But what is most objectional about this amendment is that it goes beyond the use of Federal funds. This amendment would say that the District of Columbia cannot even use its own local funds, not Federal funds, its own local funds nor can they use private funds that are contributed to the needle exchange program that the Whitman Walker Clinic operates under contract to the District of Columbia. Why do they operate this program? Looking at the statistics, they are shocking. In fact, the majority of new growth in HIV infections is women, and those women apparently are primarily infected by dirty needles, and, in fact, one statistic that we brought up in the full committee is that 97 percent of the new HIV infections among African- Americans are occurring because of dirty needles. That is why the Whitman Walker Clinic contracts with the District of Columbia for the use of its own funds and private funds for this, and we think they should have that option if that is what they choose to do with those funds. We have another amendment that will be offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) dealing with adoptions. It says that couples cannot adopt unless they are in a traditional marriage situation. But by implication it says it is perfectly okay for people who cannot engage in a long-term commitment, whether it be a heterosexual or a homosexual commitment, single people are fully capable of adopting if they want, but not couples, even men and women who have lived together in a monogamous relationship for many years. Then we have another amendment that makes it a crime for a minor to be in possession of tobacco. I do not know that we would fight that amendment, but it is strange that this bill had the ability to enable the District of Columbia to file suit against the tobacco companies with the other State attorneys general and yet this bill does not allow them to do that. That would have enabled D.C. to recover millions of dollars of Medicaid funds attributable to the loss of life due to tobacco products. We have an education voucher bill that has been protected. It is very controversial. I will not address the merits of it. I do think there is some merit to it. But the fact is if it were to be added to this bill, it kills this bill. This bill will be vetoed. Period. And so why do it if we know that it would kill the bill? We have another provision in this bill that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) will raise and we think that amendment is in order. After all, the gentlewoman is the one true representative of the District of Columbia and she will suggest that funds should be able to be used if these are local funds, not Federal funds, for women who choose to exercise their constitutional rights to terminate a pregnancy. We have a number of controversial issues here, more than we need to have. The Committee on Rules could have enabled us just to talk about amendments that were only appropriate to an appropriations bill. It chose not to do that. For that reason, we would urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), a former State secretary of education for that State.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I can see the natives are being restless. We have very little time here left. Would the Chair clarify exactly how much time is left?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, could I clarify that. I think that this side has the right to close.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman is prepared to give us his final flurry, what we can do is have one last speaker, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), after the gentleman yields, and that will be closure.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, at this time our side is honored and pleased to yield the balance of the time to the very distinguished delegate, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. Mr. Chairman, I have supported this amendment in the past because I think that we do need to provide alternatives for those children who are living in untenable situations, and their parents do need alternatives from what are currently provided to them in order to receive an adequate public education. But I do not support including this amendment in the District of Columbia Appropriations Act. The President has said, if this amendment is included in this bill, I will veto this bill. So why would we force this bill into a veto situation when it includes $85 million for the District of Columbia public schools and $20 million for charter schools, which is a new initiative, which is education reform, which is terribly important, which we will lose if this is attached to the bill? Today is the 6th of August. Tomorrow we are going to recess for an entire month. When we return we will have 4 weeks to conference this bill, to vote on the conference report and send the bill to the President. I would hope we do not send a bill that will be vetoed. I do not understand why this needs to be included. We had a separate piece of legislation that dealt with this issue. I think that is the appropriate way to do it, not to put it on an appropriations bill. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I have to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the gentleman that offered this amendment what I know the gentleman knows, and that is that this amendment is moot. There are an insufficient number of signatures gathered. The petition was rejected with a statistical level of 95 percent confidence that there were insufficient valid signatures of registered voters for the District as a whole. I do not need to go into all of this. The conclusion is that the recommendation of the Board of Elections and Ethics is that the initiative measure be rejected, which would have allowed the medical use of marijuana. So we are not talking about anything of consequence. The District of Columbia voters have voted. This has been rejected. This is the process that should have been pursued, instead of us trying to impose our will on the District of Columbia voters. They have acted as apparently you would like them to act, and, from your perspective, I am sure, have done the right thing. This is moot, it is extraneous, it is late, and we have no reason to have taken this up. I wish the gentleman had withdrawn the amendment, as we requested. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), who has been a long time leader in the fight for healthy children.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I am not opposed to the Virginia law.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that we want enforcement first.

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, as does the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and the American Lung Association. Like the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), I was a cosponsor of the Healthy Kids Act. Many of us were. It would have established tough new penalties against companies for targeting tobacco products at our children. But this amendment is different. Instead of penalizing the tobacco companies for targeting our children, the gentleman's amendment penalizes the children for possessing their products. Mr. Chairman, before we go after kids for possessing these products, maybe we should go after the merchants who sell their tobacco products to under-aged children. That is what the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is. As my colleagues know, the Department of Health and Human Services did a survey and showed that 42 percent of retailers in the D.C. area sell tobacco products to minors. We are told that this is a major problem in the District of Columbia. And to blame it on the children without giving responsibility to the tobacco companies seems to be blaming the victim. Mr. Chairman, after making children pawns of decades of sophisticated marketing techniques by the tobacco industry, it would really seem that to take them off the hook and to criminalize possession by children who are not old enough to know better, but certainly tobacco companies are, is misplaced enforcement. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I am in opposition to the amendment, Mr. Chairman.