Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the implication is that the suburbs around the District of Columbia are acting in their own parochial self-interest and not in the interests of the District of Columbia. I rise to let my colleagues know that from my perspective we are doing just the opposite. The fact is that if this residency requirement were to become law, it is the suburbs who will be benefited because we will have an even larger pool of the most qualified experienced applicants for the kinds of municipal jobs that the District of Columbia needs. We are not suffering from a lack of employment opportunities, certainly not in the suburbs. We have less than a 2 percent unemployment rate. We do not need this residency requirement to be repealed, but the District of Columbia does. The District of Columbia needs to be able to draw upon the widest personnel pool that it can so that it can get the very best people working for D.C. That is what we hope to accomplish by preventing a residency requirement, because the District of Columbia is a city of only 500,000 people. It is not like Chicago that has 8 million people. They have a residency requirement. That works. Chicago doesn't have a restricted pool of personnel from which they can draw. Let us talk about one particular job that many people might cite, that of law enforcement officer. If a law enforcement officer has just graduated from college, and I know in the suburbs, hopefully it is the case in the District of Columbia too, they look for college graduates because there is a lot of demand for law enforcement jobs now. We have raised the caliber, and the compensation. When that young law enforcement person tries to determine what is in their best interest, they look to the future. They are not like some highly paid professional athlete that figures they can go with one team for a few years and then move on to another one, whoever offers them the right money. They want to sink in their roots. They want to make a commitment to a community. When they look at the District of Columbia and make that determination, that if they work for D.C. they will never be able to choose where they want to live, they are not going to look any longer at D.C., they are going to look at the suburbs, and we are going to be able to get even more people applying for our jobs. That is not in D.C.'s interest, it is only in our interest. Let me give you a specific example. We have a Capitol police force of highly qualified professional people. We lost two who in fact were typical of the professionalism, the quality of people that work for us. One of the reasons that we have such high quality is they know they can choose to live anywhere they want. They have all those options open to them. The two people that were lost in that tragedy happened to live outside of the District of Columbia; one of them because they wanted a larger garden, another who lived down in Lake Ridge. We would never impose a residency requirement on the Capitol Hill police force because we know that we want the best people available working for us, protecting us. If you impose a residency requirement on the District of Columbia Government, D.C. will never have the best people working for their citizens. We know that. It only makes common sense. There are far better ways to address this problem, if there is a problem. One is to give incentives. In Alexandria, we do that. We give them discounts on home purchases. Give them a number of things to make D.C. more attractive. Work with the carrot, not the stick. This is a punitive provision that will hurt D.C. in the long run. I urge the Members to reject this amendment.

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished delegate from the District of Columbia for yielding me this time. The 1980 Supreme Court decision entitled Harris v. McRea upheld the right of Congress to restrict the use of Federal funds to provide abortions to poor women, but it clearly asserted that State funds used to provide abortions for poor women is a State not a Federal decision. In fact, to quote, it said, ``A participating State is free, if it so chooses, to include in its own Medicaid plan those medically necessary abortions for which Federal reimbursement is unavailable.'' The District of Columbia has its own State Medicaid plan. It used this very language for medically necessary abortions. It really is wrong for us to be superimposing Federal will on a decision that may be a difficult one but really needs to be made by the duly-elected representatives of the citizens of the District of Columbia. They made that decision because they understand that there are thousands of women in this city who do not have the resources to provide for their own medical care and do not have adequate insurance. Their only resort is the Medicaid program. So they set up a separate Medicaid program. No Federal funds. Local funds. That is all the Norton amendment applies to. It does not affect the Hyde amendment, which applies in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. We do not do this to any other State. And while the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) made a very good argument, I thought, with regard to late-term abortions, the reality is, from the studies that have been done, they have determined that most of those late-term abortions, certainly on the part of poor women, became late term because the women did not have the resources to fund an abortion early in the pregnancy when it was most appropriate and when the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade expected them to be performed.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the chairman of the committee that the D.C. Revitalization Act transferred this property to the Federal Government, the Department of Interior. So, it is not the citizens of the District of Columbia now that are responsible for it, but the Department of the Interior recognizes it does not have the resources, nor the will, to maintain this property, and thus it is at their request that it is the General Services Administration that would assume responsibility for the property as well as the environmental assessment and subsequent clean up.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is absolutely correct. We did attempt to put further language in this bill. I think it should have been included, obviously, that could have facilitated the transfer from the Department of Interior to the General Services Administration. They made the estimate of $7 million as to what would be necessary to do the environmental assessment and other related activities. I would hope that perhaps in conference we could take care of that. But without this clarifying language then the $7 million is not of any real use because it is only confined to the facility. I appreciate the gentleman's comments though.

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this is simply a technical perfecting amendment. The language says Lorton Correctional Complex, which would refer to the facility. We want the environmental study done of the property on which the facility is located. We do not want to spend $7 million to sweep the floors within the prison. We want to determine what toxins might exist around the complex. Obviously most of the toxins were dumped out of the prison, they are throughout the property on which the prison facility is located. I have to say that this would not have been necessary but for the fact that we only got this bill language yesterday morning. As a result, we were only able to look through the bill at the last minute. I would expect that this would not be a problem, that we can clarify it. I cannot imagine why it would be controversial.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Taking back my time, the gentleman is absolutely correct. There is an aquifer that runs under the complex. That is why if the language is as restrictive as is stated in the bill, then we really do not accomplish the objective of determining what the cost of a complete environmental cleanup would be. I am glad the chair of the authorizing committee is familiar with the situation as he obviously is and understands the necessity of perfecting this language so that it can accomplish its objective.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am going to rise in support of this amendment. The reason is a pretty basic principle. What we are appropriating, Federal money is directed. This is local money. This really is the money that comes from the citizens of the District of Columbia, and it would seem they should be able to spend it as they would like. I admire the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for wanting to sustain the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, because she lives in D.C., and it is not always convenient to have these ANCs. For example, the gentlewoman wanted to build a deck, and she had to go before the ANC before she can build a deck because it affects the quality of life of her neighbors. The former Speaker wanted to put in a garage, he wanted to close an alley. He could not do it because he had to go to the Advisory Neighborhood Commission himself. Mr. Michel, the former minority leader, had to go through the same kind of thing. I am sure it is annoying, but the fact is it provides a kind of vigilance to protect these individual neighborhoods. Now, I thought that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) brought up a very important point when he showed the newspaper article, because the newspaper article pointed out that the woman, who happened to be the mayor's former wife, Mrs. Treadwell, but the woman did misappropriate funds. That was a crime. But the point is that an audit caught it and she was punished for it. So the system is working. When we have these egregious instances, the people that commit them are caught, they are brought to justice, and it shows that the people of the District of Columbia are not going to tolerate this kind of thing. I think that is good. I am sure that the ANCs do not work at maximum efficiency nor effectiveness, and we have read articles that show that there are a lot of deficiencies. What the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) suggested is try to fix it; suggest some things that will tighten it up. Already suggestions have been made by Members of the D.C. council, and I understand they are going to be implemented, that will tighten it up, and we could do more than that. But I think to impose our will upon something that thousands of people are involved in, to say no, you cannot do this, you cannot do it with your own money, you have to give up what is really the most directly representative government that the District of Columbia has, is contrary to the principle that I thought the other side stood for, which is the maximum devolution of authority and responsibility down to the lowest level possible, where people can exercise their civic duties and responsibilities, and that is this Advisory Neighborhood Commission structure. I do not want to fall on our sword on this, and some of the things they have done are clearly indefensible. But I think it is more indefensible for us to stand here as judge and jury and to say that the citizens of the District cannot use their own money as they would choose. If this was a direct appropriation I think it would be something different, and I trust that we would not be appropriating directly Federal funds. But that is not what this is. This is really an imposition from the Federal Government in a way that not only is micromanagement, but I think is a real slap in the face to the efforts of the District of Columbia to gain maximum representation for their citizens, and particularly, opportunities for their civic leaders.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Julian Dixon), a man who for several years sacrificed career opportunities, spending an extraordinary amount of time and attention all in the interest of the people of the District of Columbia as chairman of this D.C. Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) would normally be speaking at this point, after the chairman of the committee. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cunningham has been immensely helpful, particularly in the education area. He fought not just for money for charter schools but also for the D.C. regular public education system, and so we miss him. He is right now in the hospital. He just had surgery, but he says he feels like a million bucks and he will be back with us after the Labor Day recess. But we want to recognize the fact that normally he would be very much engaged in this debate. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) for many of the provisions that are in this bill. As this D.C. appropriations bill came through the full committee, I think it struck a proper balance between meeting the needs of the city and respecting the decisions of its government, and yet fulfilling our own fiscal and legislative responsibilities. Mr. Chairman, this is never an easy bill to pass. It may be the least consequential to some Members but it is the most consequential to the community in which the Capitol is located. It is the smallest in dollar amount in terms of all the appropriations bills, and yet it can be the most contentious. Ordinarily, the reason it is so contentious is because amendments are attempted to be added to this appropriations bill that do not belong in any appropriations bill, because they are designed to be divisive. I think we have that situation today with many of the amendments that we will be discussing. They are divisive amendments. For the most part, these are not decisions that should be made here, but rather should be made by the constituency that is most directly affected by the result of those decisions; in other words, the people that live within the District of Columbia. I do appreciate the fact that after the subcommittee mark, a number of changes were made to this bill that I think considerably improve this bill. For example, in the subcommittee, while charter schools were increased by $21 million to meet the increased demand and about 4,000 students now apparently want to attend charter schools this year, all that money was taken out of the traditional D.C. public school system. Mr. Chairman, that is not fair. We cannot eliminate teachers or classrooms just because one, two, or three students leave a classroom to go to a charter school. Some of the new charter school students are coming from private schools. So the policy of paying for charter school expansion by cutting the traditional public school system has been rectified, so that in fact the D.C. public school system will get all of its money, as will the charter school movement. In addition, there are a number of new economic developments taking place within the District of Columbia. This bill enhances their ability to realize their potential. For example, this bill includes $25 million that can be used for a metro stop at the new civic convention center; it includes $46 million out of the potential $75 million that the Senate had added for infrastructure. We think $46 million should go a long ways to meeting the infrastructure demands on the city. This bill does address the problem we have at the Lorton Reservation in Virginia where a prison is closing down and we need to determine what toxicity exists in the soil, what kinds of environmental cleanup is necessary. We will have to make some changes both to the report language and to the bill in order to do it properly. The General Services Administration is the proper agency to conduct an environmental assessment, so I hope that we will be able to accomplish that on the floor today. The amendments, though, that will probably take the most time are ones that were meant to be divisive. For example, there will be an amendment on needle exchanges. Nobody wants to deal with needle exchanges. Nobody really wants to address a problem of HIV infection that is tied to drug addiction. But the reality is that we have a serious problem in the District of Columbia and, in fact, the new cases of HIV infection are as a result of dirty needles, particularly among women, particularly among the minority community. In the committee, we fixed the problem by saying, we will not use Federal money but they can use their local money and their private money. I would hope that we would sustain that full Appropriations Committee decision and reject the amendment that will be offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt). Likewise there will be an amendment with regard to adoption. This amendment says that if you are not in a traditional marriage arrangement, then you cannot adopt. Yet by implication it suggests that if you cannot engage in a long-term commitment with another adult, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual, albeit unmarried, then you are worthy of adopting a child. We do not think that is the kind of thing we ought to get involved in. There will also be an amendment on the so-called DC voucher system. I know everyone is trying to figure out ways to improve the D.C. public school system. If we can do that, we can go a long ways to enabling the District of Columbia to be economically and socially self-sufficient. But if the D.C. voucher amendment is added to this bill, we may as well not go any further, because it is a poison pill. The President has stated quite clearly it will be vetoed if the voucher amendment is added. So while you may want to vote for vouchers independently, I would suggest that it should not be added to the appropriations bill, and so we would expect that would merit a no vote. Now, there is another bill, there is another amendment that will be offered by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), and I think it is a very legitimate amendment to offer. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) would prefer that we sustain a provision that the D.C. government, in fact, has voted in favor of, which would require that any new hires within the D.C. Government be residents of the District of Columbia. The problem is that that restricts the personnel pool from which the District can choose its new hires, much too severely. We do not think it is in the interest of the District of Columbia, and we would argue against that provision. We will have other amendments dealing with the use of local funds for abortion. Again, if we do not pass those amendments, it is going to be severely restricting local funds. We have got another provision that prohibits the District of Columbia government from being able to spend their own funds on advisory neighborhood commissions. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon), I trust, will address that. This could be a long debate. I would hope throughout this debate, though, that the Members would show sensitivity and respect for the prerogatives of local government and in the long run what is in the very best interest of the District of Columbia citizens. That is our ultimate responsibility. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Jim Moran

Speeches

Manage analytics