Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

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

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me so that I can explain. This is not the same language that is in the bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hefley amendment. Don't let proponents of this amendment deceive you into thinking this is a complicated issue. It is very straightforward. It is simply about equal opportunity. Equal rights. Anti-discrimination. The President's executive order provides no additional ``special privileges'' for any ``special interest group.'' It clearly prohibits the federal government from considering sexual orientation in employment decisions. This has been the policy for most federal agencies and offices but has not been uniformly stated for all federal employment agencies. As the body charged with determining terms of employment for federal employees, we have a grave responsibility in leading the effort to break down the walls of discrimination in employment. The fact that we are charged with legislating equal opportunity labor practices for all employers throughout the United States and policies that affect international employment practices makes this an even greater responsibility. Fortunately, this is not a complicated issue as so many that we consider here are. Discrimination is wrong in any form. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is just as wrong as discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or sex. We shouldn't discriminate in federal government employment practices. It is that simple. The Hefley amendment would deny the use of funds for the implementation, enforcement, or administration of the executive order to include sexual orientation in the federal government's anti- discrimination employment policy. It would allow the Federal Government to discriminate in its employment practices and it would show private employers that the federal government does not enforce its own anti- discrimination policies. This is not the way we should treat our own employees and not the message we should be sending to employers in the United States and internationally. I urge you to support equal opportunity employment and the end of discrimination in the workplace by opposing the Hefley amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I compliment the advocates of this amendment on the clever way it has been crafted. It appeals to a broader base of members who support states' rights and are sensitive to the issues of federalism and preserving the 10th Amendment. Who in their right mind wants to fund the Justice Department at the behest of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to intervene in the courts to overturn and repeal states laws or local ordinances? That, however, is not the case. First, the World Trade organization, and its dispute resolution panels, have no power to compel the U.S. to change Federal, State or local laws and regulations; and, Second, state and local governments that engage in sanctions on foreign governments and their nations are clearly overstepping their authority under the Constitution and engaging in U.S. foreign policy. Mr. Chairman, the WTO has no authority in the United States. In fact, the federal law implementing the Uruguay Round specifically precludes U.S. federal courts from giving WTO panel reports any deference. The truth is that if a WTO panel determines that a U.S. state law violates the WTO Agreement, the federal government is not obligated to do anything. Under the Uruguay Round, U.S. sovereignty is actually strengthened by granting the United States a number of options that help contain the dispute and protects against the imposition of unilateral sanctions or the initiation of a destructive trade war. Under the Uruguay Round, the U.S. government can elect to take no action, it can negotiate a mutually acceptable compensation, it can accept the suspension of trade concessions by the prevailing party, or it can intervene in federal court to overturn or nullify the disputed law. In the past 50 years that the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade has been in effect, the federal government has never brought a court action to repeal or nullify a state law. Now let me comment on my second point. When a local or state government seeks to impose trade sanctions on foreign governments, they are going beyond their constitutional authority and engaging in foreign policy. Mr. Chairman, I am a strong advocate of protecting the rights of state and local governments. I was a lead sponsor of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act that protects state and local governments against the imposition of unfunded federal mandates, laws where we mandate that state and local governments compliance without providing the funds to pay for their implementation. I also just voted in support of an amendment offered by my colleague Jim Kolbe banning federal funds to implement executive order 13083. This executive order on federalism was a mistake and is opposed by all state and local elected officials on a bipartisan basis. But just as we should respect and protect state and local authority, we should protect and respect federal authority and not undermine the ability of the U.S. government to conduct U.S. trade and foreign policy. The two local laws that have given impetus to this amendment and may come before a WTO dispute panel are the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' procurement policy that penalizes business, U.S. and foreign, that do business with Burma and New York's sanctions on Swiss banks that fail to cooperate with victims of the Holocaust. I can sympathize and perhaps even support the objectives of both New York and Massachusetts. But the proper place to establish these policies is at the federal level here in Congress and in the executive branch, not at the state or local level. If Congress feels as strongly as Massachusetts and New York feel about human rights abuses in Burma or the lack of cooperation Swiss banks have given Holocaust victims, then let us debate the merits of trade sanctions or other action targeted against Burma and Switzerland. The real issue isn't whether you oppose human rights violations or sympathize with Holocaust victims, the real issue is whether you think the state and local governments should set this nation's foreign policy and trade agenda. Oppose the Kucinich-Sanders amendment and demonstrate your respect for what our Founding Fathers intended. Preserve the right of Congress to establish U.S. trade and foreign policy.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, ATP is much more focused on the private sector, on the small business community who aspire to bring companies public, to develop private sector jobs. NSF is much more university oriented, more academically oriented. They do compliment each other, they are not mutually exclusive, and that is the point I wish to make, that ATP does play a role. It is a complimentary role. It is kind of a last resort opportunity for firms that know that they have a good idea, they have to compete with other good ideas and have to be fully reviewed, and I think it is a great deal of scrutiny they are exposed to.

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this shortsighted amendment, because it restricts American investment in new ideas. It is ideas and the whole process of innovation that cause economic growth. We should be nurturing new initiatives and providing opportunity for their development, not foreclosing them as this amendment seeks to do. In light of the comments of my friend and colleague from New Hampshire, let me tell you the story of a handful of research scientists from Springfield, Virginia. These researchers were studying methods of detecting minute concentrations of chemicals. Existing technology measures radiation output to identify these chemicals. However, when detecting extremely minute quantities, naturally occurring background radiation creates too much noise to provide useful measurements. To overcome this problem, they conceived of a sophisticated multiphoton detector which could not only measure the rate of radiation decay but the type of decay as well, effectively eliminating all background noise. Eventually we will all be able to see the importance of developing this technology. But the lenders and venture capitalists were wary of investing in what had to be considered a high-risk project. With a $1.7 million grant, not a big grant, but $1.7 million from the Advanced Technology Program, they successfully developed the multiphoton detector. The detector is currently undergoing final testing, and the company is seeking premarketing approval from necessary regulatory agencies. Over the next few years these few researchers hope to take their firm public. They anticipate revenues of $88 million, and they expect to employ about 300 full-time employees, jobs and economic growth that would not have occurred had it not been for the ATP program. The benefits of this new detection system will have broad applications throughout society. Doctors can look for certain particles in minute traces of saliva rather than invasively drawing spinal fluid. There are applications for this product in health care, environmental protection, even processing materials to build sensitive items like semiconductors. When these researchers could not get financing from private sector local lenders and venture capitalists, they had to turn to the Advanced Technology Program. Without the ATP, the only option left to them would have been to develop this product overseas. Now China and Korea and Japan all realize the importance of funding high-risk research that will have broad benefits to their economy and society. If we relinquish our role as the world leader in fostering technological innovation, then we can expect a decrease in market share for all our technological products and a corresponding loss of American jobs. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that this amendment is in America's interest. I think the Advanced Technology Program is in America's interest. This amendment would hamper growth. We need to be finding ways of sustaining and expanding growth. This amendment would stifle innovation. We need to be encouraging innovation in every way possible. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote a resounding ``no''.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentlewoman from Michigan clarified that.

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I think the government has a synergistic role with the private sector, particularly in areas like this.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it really is a scandal. I think the only reason that it continues is that most taxpayers just have no idea that this is going on. They have no idea of the facts. They trust the Congress is going to do the right thing with their tax money. But I cannot imagine any objective observer, any average taxpayer who would want their money wasted in such a scandalous fashion as it is with TV Marti, where there is no audience, where there is an enormous amount of overhead, and where no advertiser would ever purchase time because there is no audience to this thing. And yet we are spending millions and millions and millions of dollars, apparently for some political purpose but certainly not for any objective public policy purpose. So, unless the gentleman has anything further to add, I will conclude my statement, and I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) accepting the amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. This is really an unbelievable waste of taxpayers' money.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs). It just boggles the mind how with all the priorities that we have in this country, that we would be spending millions and millions of dollars to maintain a system that serves no real function other than perhaps a political one. I saw the chart up there, and would the gentleman confirm that we have more than 40 employees working on TV Marti compared to a handful on Radio Free Asia and some of the programs that actually are effective?

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simply a perfecting amendment. I agree with the gentleman from Colorado that TV Marti is an unfortunate waste of taxpayers' money. Because its broadcasts are jammed, TV Marti does not have a significant audience and in fact I would think it should be eliminated. Like the underlying amendment, my amendment deletes the funding for TV Marti but leaves just a bit more money in the international broadcasting operations for other programs. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the gentleman would accept my amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this Airport Improvement Reauthorization Act. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for crafting thoughtful and responsive legislation that will help revitalize the Federal Aviation Administration while reauthorizing Federal aviation programs, but I am concerned about provisions in the Senate bill that take us a step back and would bring controversy and invite opposition to this important legislation by increasing the number of flights to the four slot-controlled airports. In the case of Washington National Airport, the Senate legislation would add an additional 24 slots to this congested airport and lift the perimeter rule, permitting half of those slots to fly beyond the current 1,250-mile perimeter restriction. A change in the perimeter rule would result in a cutback in locations currently served by National within the perimeter and adversely affect the development of the Washington area's three commercial airports. Over time, short-range service to cities that generate less than $20 million in revenue would be displaced and the number of transcontinental flights operating out of Dulles, which has plenty of room for expansion, would decline. Thus, the substantial investment made at both National and Dulles by the taxpayers, the Federal Aviation Administration and the aviation community would become substantially devalued. In 1986 the Washington region made a contract with the Congress that the Washington region would take over both the funding and operational responsibility for its airports. It was signed by President Reagan. The region fulfilled its part of the bargain. We came up with the money. We remodeled all of the airports. It is working fine. Now Congress should not renege on its part of the bargain. And that is why I urge the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to remain firm and oppose the addition of any Senate language altering the number of flights or the current perimeter rule that governs the operation of Washington National Airport.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Shays-Meehan bill because it is both bipartisan and comprehensive. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shays-Meehan substitute. I support the Shays-Meehan amendment because it is bipartisan, comprehensive, and it reforms the abuse of so-called ``soft-money.'' More than any other proposal, the Shays-Meehan amendment has taken into account the concerns of both Democrats and Republicans. It has struck an important balance and will ensure that reform will not unduly burden one party or another. I support the Shays-Meehan amendment because it is comprehensive. It reform issue-advocacy campaigns by adopting tight definitions and reporting requirements. It attacks multi-million dollar independent expenditures by ensuring that they are truly independent. And it codifies the Supreme Court's decision in Beck versus N.C.W.A. to ensure that union dues are not misspent. Perhaps most importantly, I support the Shays-Meehan amendment because it reforms soft money. Both political parties are to blame for soliciting soft money. In 1996, Democrats and Republicans raised over $262 million in unregulated soft money--well over 200 percent more than they raised in 1992. Our current campaign finance laws welcome unregulated corporate and union contributions. In the last election cycle, Philip Morris Companies, Seagram & Sons, RJR Nabisco, and Atlantic Richfield each gave millions of dollars in unregulated soft money. Is there any wonder why we haven't passed a tobacco bill this year? The financing of Congressional campaigns prevents the political, but more importantly it can prevent the legislative process. And the exploitation of these loopholes will only continue unless the Shays- Meehan solution is enacted. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill and returning the power of democracy to the average individual voters and remove that power from the wealthy ``special'' interests.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to designate the Headquarters Compound of the Central Intelligence Agency as the George H.W. Bush Center for Central Intelligence. This is a fitting tribute to the great contributions of George Bush to the CIA, our federal government and our nation. Mr. Speaker, George Bush served our country not only as President, but also Vice President, U.N. Ambassador, Chief of the U.S. Liaison Office to the People's Republic of China, Member of Congress and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. His life was truly one in the public service, and he served our nation ably and faithfully for more than 50 years. He was appointed to serve as director of the CIA in 1976, and provided leadership to that agency at a time when the U.S. intelligence community was publically unpopular and roundly criticized as too secretive. George Bush is credited with many improvements at the CIA and restoring the morale of the employees. As the only president to have served as director of the CIA, he continues to be held in high regard by past and present CIA employees, and may members of the U.S. intelligence community. Mr. Speaker, the CIA building is in my district. And although I am a Democrat and George Bush has been a loyal Republican all his life, it is highly appropriate to memorialize a man of George Bush's integrity, work ethic and dedication to public service by naming the headquarters of an indispensable part of the U.S. Government and an irreplaceable instrument of world peace in his honor. George Bush loved the people, and respected the institution of the CIA as no other American President has. I urge all my colleagues to grant him this honor.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, in 1953, the United States was already competing in an international arms race. Recognizing that the danger of a buildup of nuclear weapons posed considerable, risk to the United States, President Eisenhower proposed not merely eliminating the use of nuclear technology for military purposes, but a mechanism to remove nuclear technology from the hands of soldiers and place it in the hands of those who could adapt it to the art of peace. The entity formed to accomplish this task was the International Atomic Energy Agency. Under the auspices of the IAEA, nuclear technology has made substantial contributions to sustainable development across many sectors, including energy, health, agriculture and hydrology. It has also provided a platform for nuclear states to verify and monitor each other's compliance with nonproliferation treaties. This is why I oppose H.R. 3743, the so-called Iran Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1998. Cutting U.S. contributions to the IAEA will not advance any legitimate United States interest, but it will increase risk to the United States and to civilians living in the Middle East. Without IAEA supervision, Iran will certainly turn to the Russians for help in constructing nuclear reactors. Would we really prefer that Iran's reactors be constructed by those responsible for Chernobyl? No offense to the Russians, but that would not even be in their own security interests. If the IAEA withdraws from assisting Iran, as the sponsors of this bill would have it do, there will be even fewer organizations interacting with Iran. I would suggest that this is precisely the wrong course of action. The past few months have brought tentative first steps toward a more engaging relationship with Iran. We should not now push them away. We should try to find whatever positive opportunities there exists. I know the difficulties, but we need to support the moderates in Iran and not to give support, unintentionally, but in reality, to the most extreme elements. This bill, in fact, will give ammunition to the most extreme elements just as these kinds of resolutions directed toward Cuba, only serve to strengthen Fidel Castro's hold. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, we are undeniably subjecting the IAEA's actions to domestic politics. I suppose that we should not be surprised, because in the same way that U.N. dues are held hostage every year to family planning and abortion debates, IAEA funding is now fair game for those that may disagree with its programs in Iran or Cuba or other nations who are fair game to political sanctions. This is an irresponsible and dangerous road to go down, Mr. Speaker. Nuclear safety is simply too important to be held hostage to the political whims of Congress. This Congress should vote against this resolution.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding to me. I would just like to mention at this point, there is another organization that has fulfilled a complementary role. That organization's name is Heroes, Incorporated. They responded immediately with cash assistance to the family and are also prepared to provide scholarship funds, as they have for every police officer killed in the District of Columbia, I think it is over 300 now, and dozens of children are receiving college scholarships as a result of this organization. This is a wonderful fund, and I mean nothing pejorative, and I wholly support it. But I think it might be appropriate to mention the fact that the Heroes also responded in a very generous fashion and deserve some credit for doing that as well.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation that moves the convention center forward for the District of Columbia. Frankly, having a world class convention center in the Washington metropolitan area is something that the entire region needs, and there are suburban jurisdictions that would have loved to have had this center within their jurisdiction. I can say, quite frankly, we had some great sites for it. But the fact is, it belongs in the center city. Had the business community, the residential community, the political community not gotten their act together they might have lost this, but this is a credit to the fact that there is that kind of symbiotic relationship that is acting in a constructive manner today, particularly the hotel, the restaurant, and the tourism industry. They deserve this convention center. Most importantly, the people of the District of Columbia deserve this convention center and all the economic benefits it will provide. I thank the gentleman who chairs the District of Columbia authorizing committee for moving this legislation forward at a rapid pace, and I look forward to the day that we can all go to this convention center and enjoy not only the center itself, but all the economic and social benefits it will bring to this great capital city.