Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Biomaterial Access Assurance Act. When companies decide to stop producing certain life-saving products because of the threat of costly litigation, we have reached the point in our society where our urge to protect smothers our ability to heal. Medical implants such as heart valves, joint implants, and brain shunts save or improve the lives of more than 7.5 million people every year. The worldwide market for medical devices exceeds $100 billion, with about half of that supplied by American firms. Biomaterials are the raw materials, such as silicone, polyester, urethane, and polyropylene, used to make medical devices. The already small number of U.S. firms that produce these materials is shrinking, as businesses face the threat of scatter-shot lawsuits. Under U.S. product liability laws, any party involved in the creation of a product--even remote contributors--may be included in product liability litigation. It is a troubling paradox that now, when the opportunity for technical innovation in the use of medical implants has never been greater, Americans are being robbed of the benefits of these products. Dupont decided in 1994 to halt the supply of three materials used in medical implants because the sale of small amounts of these marginally profitable materials exposed Dupont to very expensive product liability lawsuits, even if Dupont won. The growing fear of litigation has led 14 suppliers to cut the supply of biomaterials to the medical implant market, with many certain to follow. The uncertainty surrounding the supply of biomaterials has already caused a technological slowdown. Companies are reluctant to push forward with new product ideas they're not sure they can ever afford to insure, manufacture and market. Suppliers of raw biomaterials (mostly small companies) who do not make or design medical devices should not be held responsible when a manufactured product allegedly malfunctions. This protection from litigation is included in the Biomaterial Access Assurance Act. This biomaterials reform legislation will not hold the manufacturers of faulty biomaterial products harmless. The ability to sue a supplier is maintained in the legislation if the biomaterial is defective, fails to meet contractual agreements, or where the supplier is also the manufacturer. Putting small high-tech firms that make implantable medical devices out of business is an unfortunate economic consequence of our society's litigious nature. These firms should be nurtured and supported, not run out of business because they can't afford the cost of lawsuits, the vast majority of which they win, but which nevertheless soak up valuable financial and human resources. Opponents of product liability reform often speak of their concern for the victims of defective products. But unless we enact this legislation, we could soon have more than 7.5 million more victims-- those individuals who depend on medical devices made with biomateials. I must admit to a certain personal interest in this subject. There is a medical implant, a small brain shunt, in my daughter Dorothy's head that serves as a relief valve so that the pressure from any fluid buildup from cancer growth can be relieved. I don't even know the name of the company that supplied the materials for the brain shunt. Yet I'm told by her doctors that our current short-sighted product liability laws may force the company that helped save my daughter's life to forego supplying any more such low-cost shunts. In 1994, when Dorothy was diagnosed with brain cancer, her doctors gave her 50/50 odds of reaching her fifth birthday. Dorothy turned six last month, and will attend first grade in September. Her ongoing recovery is attributable to many factors, the shunt in her hand being only one. And yet the supplier of the material that forms that shunt might pull its product off the domestic medical device market, if it hasn't already, because of the looming danger of financial ruin posed by potential product liability lawsuits. We can protect biomaterials suppliers, and provide a better quality life for the recipients of medical devices, by passing this bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as cosponsor of H.R. 3396.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson worked among us on Capitol Hill every day helping tourists, providing directions, greeting visitors, and protecting our lives. Because they did their jobs so well, we hardly ever thought of the danger that always lies just below the surface of all law enforcement activities. The tragic events of last Friday demonstrated to the Nation and the world the full peril of the law enforcement profession that is so often hidden from the public, but carried with quiet resolve by those responsible for our safety. Officer Chestnut planned to retire in September, ending an 18-year career with the Capitol Hill Police Department. His ready smile was a constant greeting to Capitol visitors. His deep, warm, velvety voice that always made you smile; his warm, helping manner, was familiar to all of us. In fact, he was writing out directions for a tourist when the gunman entered the Capitol and shot him in the head. His last act was one of professional and selfless service. Officer Gibson was from Massachusetts, and was married to the niece of our good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Joe Moakley). While detailed to the majority whip's office, he impressed everyone with his quiet dignity and dedication. His dedication led him to save many lives while bringing down the gunman, and in so doing, lay down his own life. All who work in and visit the Capitol Hill complex owe a special debt of gratitude to these brave officers, but all Americans honor them today. In this citadel of democracy, the United States Capitol, whether we perform the tasks of government or celebrate our historical heritage, we walk freely. We can do so because of the dedication and skill of our Capitol Hill police officers. Officers Chestnut and Gibson performed their duties with excellence, and died in the noble exercise of their profession. Today we mourn their deaths, sympathize with and pray for their families, and rededicate ourselves to reducing violence, punishing lawlessness, and celebrating the qualities of courage and sacrifice that stand as the ultimate testament to the lives of these two heroes.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, there must be certain provisions included in patients rights legislation in order to ensure true protections. For all health plans, there should be an outside review appeals mechanism. Patients should have the right to appeal adverse coverage decisions made by their health plans. Women should be able to choose their OBGYNs as their primary care physician, and chronically ill patients should not have to get referral from a primary care physician every time they need to see the specialist who treats their chronic illness. States should be able to protect consumers from breaches to consumer privacy. The Ganske-Dingell substitute provides these vital protections and more. Although I have concerns about a provision in the bill which deals with the certification of class action law suits, I feel that the true protections the Ganske-Dingell substitute would provide are of greater benefit to health care consumers, our constituents, than my concerns could justify opposing the substitute. I am hopeful that the authors of this legislation would consider working to address these concerns in conference, but with the assurance of the patient protections guaranteed in the Ganske-Dingell substitute I am pleased to support its passage.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, in debating the ban on partial birth abortion we have heard several different versions of the facts regarding the number of partial birth abortion procedures performed each year. Similar debate has focused on whether or not the procedure is performed on healthy fetuses of healthy mothers. According to the Centers for Disease Control latest statistics, 1.3% of the abortions performed in 1994 were performed after the 21st week of gestation. According to the Alan Gutmacher Institute only .4% (5,070) of legal abortions were performed after the 24th week of gestation, the point at which most physicians agree viability begins. These facts tell us that late term abortion is not common. No statistics are available for the number of partial birth abortion procedures performed but it doesn't matter. The fact is, if this procedure is performed after viability on healthy fetuses in healthy mothers it is too many and we should stop it and the Supreme Court has told us that we may stop it after viability except in certain circumstances. I have been committed throughout my career in Congress to protecting the reproductive health and rights of women. But the partial birth abortion procedure should not be protected as a reproductive right. It is an extremist procedure created by anti-choice extremists to destroy the credibility of moderate pro-choice activists. It is not protected by the Supreme Court in Roe versus Wade or in Casey versus Planned Parenthood and it should not be protected by Congress. This procedure is performed after fetal viability on the healthy babies of healthy mothers and it should be stopped. I will continue to fight hard for women's reproductive freedoms; freedoms that are guaranteed to us in the Constitution and restated by the Supreme Court. But I cannot condone this procedure. I support a vote override of the President's veto and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis). In May, I joined the gentleman in sending a letter to EPA attempting to resolve this important issue. I am disappointed in the response we have received and hope that the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) will work with us in conference, should congressional action be necessary.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, as we enter the next millennium, the gravest national security issue facing our Nation is whether the world's largest country, a country that is more than five times as large as the United States, becomes our most dangerous military threat, or our greatest economic opportunity. Whether China becomes a threat or an opportunity depends upon whether our policy becomes one of isolation or one of engagement. That is the issue that is to be decided by this vote. A vote to reject normal trade relations sends a signal to China that we consider them an enemy in the same way that we do our avowed enemies like Iraq and Libya. They will then have every reason to continue to proliferate weapons to such enemies and to aim their missiles at the United States, because we will have declared that our policy is not one of engagement, of the building up of mutual trust and respect, but of isolation, and distrust. If we, though, follow the advice of the many Christian missionaries working in the villages in China that have asked us to establish permanent, normal trade relations with China, we will embark on a path toward peace and prosperity in the next millennium, because what we are talking about goes far beyond dollars and cents here. What we are talking about is the spread of ideas and ideals. Foremost among those ideals is the value of human individualism, an ideal that is inevitable and indomitable in a fare society. China is a nation with a tremendous work ethic and a rich historic culture. Its historic ethic can enhance the entire world's march toward peace and prosperity. But that destination can only be reached through economic interdependence and mutual respect. From an American nationalistic standpoint, it is important to keep the 200,000 jobs involved in exports to China. It is important to avoid passing on $500,000,000 more of Chinese tariffs to American consumers. But, far more important is the security and prosperity of our children's children. That is really what is at stake today. If China wants to compete on the world's market, it will eventually have to be, with a free enterprise economy. If China wants to lead politically, it will have to adopt a democratic system and if it ever wants to realize its full societal potential it will have to be on the basis of respect for human rights and liberties. I urge my colleagues to vote against disapproving normal trade relations with China. Vote for the peace and prosperity that can be ours if we make the right decisions on these issues.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Johnson amendment to restore $98 million in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. As a member of the Interior Appropriations subcommittee, I have learned a great deal about the NEA in the last few years. I know that the NEA would admit it has made mistakes in the past, but it has instituted a series of management reforms to ensure that those types of problems will not recur. Even given those problems, opponents of the NEA can point to only a handful of questionable grants out of hundreds of thousands that have been awarded during the 32-year history of the NEA. After hearing real people and real artists discuss what the NEA has brought to them and to their communities, I know that the NEA is an incredible catalyst for bringing people together and expressing, in a creative fashion, the full range of the human experience. The National Endowment for the Arts is successfully working to bring arts to underserved communities, through after school youth programs that are introducing our young people to the power of creative expression as an alternative to violence, and through folk and traditional arts that remind us of our common bond and what it means to be an American. Moreover, the American public supports public funding for the arts. A Louis Harris poll indicates that, by a decisive 79 percent to 19 percent margin, a better than 3-to-1 majority of the American people is convinced that it is important that there should be federal, state, and local councils for the arts to develop new programs, research and provide financial assistance to worthy arts organizations. By 57 percent to 39 percent, a clear majority of the American people favor the Federal Government funding the arts. Let's stop playing politics with this agency and follow the direction of the American people on this issue. Support the Johnson amendment and restore funding for the arts.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because it does not protect the NEA funding included in the bill against points of order. Republicans will argue that the NEA should not be protected against a point of order because it is not currently authorized. That is utterly disingenuous and they know it. There are eight other unauthorized programs with funding totaling nearly $2 billion contained in this bill that are protected from points of order by this rule. The NEA is the only unauthorized program not protected by the rule. The fact of the matter is that if the rules committee was truly concerned about unauthorized programs, it wouldn't have allowed $2 billion in funds to be protected from a point of order, while singling out the $100 million included for the NEA. Mr. Speaker, this rule allows funding for the NEA to be stripped from the bill because the Republicans want to cut the NEA. It's that simple. Every year since the Republicans gained the majority in Congress, we have had a divisive fight over arts funding, and every year the NEA has managed to survive those battles. This year, proponents of the arts were promised a clean vote on NEA funding, but it they became concerned about that promise when the full committee voted to include funding for the arts in the bill. The Republicans know that if a bill came to the floor that included funding for the arts, it would put proponents of arts funding in a stronger position than if the bill did not include funding. So, instead of allowing the funding to be included in the bill, as it was reported out of full committee, the Republicans have put forth a rule that allows funding to be stripped, putting supporters of arts funding in the weaker position of putting arts funding back in the bill. This is a truly cynical procedure that this House should reject. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Interior Appropriations subcommittee, I have learned a great deal about the NEA in the last few years. I know that the NEA would admit it has made mistakes in the past, but it has instituted a series of management reforms to ensure that those types of problems will not recur. Even given those problems, opponents of the NEA can point to only a handful of questionable grants out of hundreds of thousands that have been awarded during the 32-year history of the NEA. After hearing real people and real artists discuss what the NEA has brought to them and to their communities, I know that the NEA is an incredible catalyst for bringing people together and expressing, in a creative fashion, the full range of the human experience. The National Endowment for the Arts is successfully working to bring arts to underserved communities, through after school youth programs that are introducing our young people to the power of creative expression as an alternative to violence, and through folk and traditional arts they remind us of our common bond and what it means to be an American. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule so that we can hav a fair debate on the NEA and honor the views of the full committee, which voted to report a bill to this House that included $98 million in funding for the NEA. A vote against this rule is a vote for the arts.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Chairman of the Committee, Congressman Ralph Regula, for putting this bill together and conducting the business of this subcommittee in a spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation. I know that his interest is ensuring that, within current budget allocations, programs are funded in a way to help protect our environment and preserve our natural resources. It has also been a distinct privilege to serve on this committee with our distinguished ranking member, Congressman Sidney Yates. His passion for the things in which he believes, including the National Endowment of the Arts, is a testament to what a man of principle can do through the force of his convictions. It is truly by the force of his intellect, and in many instances, the strength of his wit, that the NEA has survived attack after attack through all of these years. As a member of this subcommittee, I will miss Sid Yates, and the spirited debate, as well as humor, he injects into our hearings. As an individual with tremendous respect for this institution and those who have served in it, I can think of no better example of selfless dedication and commitment to public service embodied in Sid Yates. This institution is a reflection of those who serve in it. Congressman Yates brings an air of dignity, of civility, of goodwill to this body that is in short supply. We will be weaker for his loss, but hope that we can attempt to live up to the high standards he has set for individual leadership and conduct in this body. Mr. Chairman, this bill is the primary funding mechanism for our nation's natural resources. Together, the four primary land management agencies funded under this bill--the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management--manage approximately 628 million acres of public land. Our nation's commitment to protection of animals, plants and mineral resources is largely carried out through this bill. In addition, our commitment to Native Americans is carried out through funding of the Indian Health Services and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Finally, research to improve our energy efficiency, and identify better renewable energy sources, are also included in this bill. While I clearly support certain funding priorities included in this bill, I remain concerned about others. This bill contains only $139 million of the $900 million authorized funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, with no funding for state matching grants. As the primary funding source for conserving our natural resources, protecting open space, and enhancing recreation opportunities, this fund should be a priority in our federal budget. I know that amendments will be offered to increase funding for the LWCF and I believe they deserve serious consideration. Mr. Skaggs and Mr. Fox will offer an amendment to increase funding for energy efficiency programs. Despite the success of these programs in conserving energy and saving money, the bill includes damaging cuts for building technology, the Federal energy management program, and transportation, among other programs. The amendment helps to restore funds to these important programs that actually result in cost savings, through reduced energy bills, and environmental protection through decreased energy use. I support this amendment and hope it will be approved. In addition, I remain concerned about providing appropriate funding to support recreation activities on our public lands. The total economic benefit to the economy from outdoor recreation exceeds $100 billion and includes more than 2.5 million jobs. Yet, the funding we pour into our forest system, for example, is tilted largely in favor of timber production, rather than conservation. While the agreement to end the purchaser road credit is an important step in reducing the dominance of money losing timber programs, it is only one program among many that deserve scrutiny and reconsideration. Currently, only one percent of the forest service budget is spent on watershed restoration and compared to the economic investment generated, a very small portion of the budget is spent on recreation. Congresswoman Furse will offer an amendment that would redirect more Forest Service funds to watershed improvements and recreation management. This is an important amendment and it should be approved. In addition, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about some of the legislative provisions that have been added to this bill. I offered an amendment at full committee which was accepted by Chairman Regula to reduce the size of the road through the Chugach National Forest that was authorized in this bill. While I appreciate the Chairman for accepting this language, it would be even better if this language were not in the bill at all because it circumvents an ongoing process between the stakeholders to determine the best location for the road. In addition, I am concerned that this bill may allow for new road construction on the Tongass National Forest and allows the use of K-V funds for administrative overhead expenses, which encourages timber salvage activities on federal lands. I hope that these issues can be addressed as we move toward conference in this bill. In addition, I hope that the wisdom of the Chairman in not including certain damaging provisions in this bill will maintain through conference. The Administration has already threatened a veto of several provisions included in the Senate version which are, thankfully, not included in this bill. The Interior Appropriations bill should not be used as a vehicle for failed ideas and proposals that did not have enough support to pass out of the authorizing committee. Mr. Chairman, putting a bill together of this scope and magnitude is a tremendous task. I want to thank Chairman Regula, Mr. Yates and the committee staff for the important work they have done in putting this bill together and hope that we can continue to work to ensure that we have a bill that has the support of Congress and this administration.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, 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 a 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 Kazakstan 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. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, since 1995, 1.2 million federally employed women of child-bearing age have been denied coverage of abortion services by their own Federal health insurance plans. And that means that all over the United States these Federal employees have been denied a constitutional right to make the critical choices about their own health. More than half of the Federal health insurance plans offered coverage of abortion services before the 1995 ban; and, currently, two-thirds of private health insurance plans provide abortion coverage to their subscribers. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and other proponents of this provision argue that the Federal Government is using tax dollars to pay for Federal health insurance plans. We would argue that that is too much of a stretch, because the Federal health insurance plan is one-third of a benefit package that every Federal employee receives in exchange for their employment, for their work. The three benefits that they get are salary, health insurance and retirement benefits. Restricting health care on the basis that it is paid for with taxpayer dollars is the same as specifying how a Federal employee can use their paycheck or their retirement savings. To mandate how they can use that money is like telling them what they can buy when they go shopping. This is money that is their money. They earned it. We have no right to tell them after they have earned it how they can spend it. I heard a while ago from a constituent of mine, I will not reveal her name, but she was forced through an ordeal that none of us would ever want to face. To think that she faces this situation only because she chose a career as a Federal employee is unconscionable, and it should make us ashamed as the people charged with making decisions about the terms of her employment. After being elated to learn she was pregnant at the age of 36, my constituent was devastated by the information that the fetus she had carried had severe fetal anomalies, anomalies that her doctor termed ``incompatible with life.'' Her physician recommended that she terminate the pregnancy as soon as possible. This procedure is covered by her insurance plan, when medically necessary, for non-Federal employees. Her insurance plan covers it if she was not a Federal employee, but only because she was a Federal employee, only because of the ban we imposed in 1995, she had to pay for this expensive procedure out of her own pocket. To quote from a letter, ``My husband and I question whether Congress is implying that we were immoral for aborting this fetus that had no brain and was virtually a vegetable. I was hoping to get pregnant with a healthy child. We were doing nothing wrong. Our decision was not wanton or frivolous, it was heartbreaking.'' For some couples, this cost can be prohibitive, further endangering the future chances of having a healthy pregnancy by delaying it even further until they can get enough money together. What right do we have to intervene in these lives and these kinds of heartbreaking decisions, making these kinds of difficult, moral choices for people we do not know in situations that we do not understand? We have no right. They earned this money. They have the right to make these kinds of decisions. We cannot predict what complicated, heartbreaking, tragic circumstances these women and families confront. Who are we to make these kinds of moral decisions for them? It is an arrogant abuse of congressional power to do this kind of thing to Federal employees or to anyone. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to end this discriminatory practice of denying coverage of necessary health care on the basis of the fact that these people are employed by the Federal Government. Please vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, in listening to the proponents of this amendment, Members would think that we were a self-sufficient economy; that it does not really matter what happens to other economies around the world, whether it be Asia or Latin America or even Europe, and that, in fact, our leadership role, such as it is, is dispensable, not necessary. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are all enjoying the benefits of a booming economy, an unparalleled level of prosperity. But how many people understand that at least a third of the economic growth that we are benefiting from is due to international trade, and that international trade is dependent upon the confidence of capital investors in our global economy? If they are not confident in the economies of other nations, they are not going to invest, they are not going to put their money into those economies in such a way that those economies will be strong and stable. If those economies are not strong and stable, they will not be able to buy our products. In fact, they could fall into such a desperate situation that they will be forced to dump their products on our marketplace. If there is anything that could jeopardize the strength of our current prosperity, it is an international currency crisis. If that happens, it will be because we did not sufficiently respect and appreciate the role that the United States is currently playing in the global economy. We are the leaders of the global economy. One of the reasons that we are the leaders of the global economy is precisely because we have these kinds of stabilization funds. Investors all over the world understand that before an economy is allowed to collapse, the United States is going to take the lead to stabilize their currency, to build up their economy, to ensure that the rest of the international economy does not collapse, because we understand our own vested interest. I hope they are not giving us too much credit. I would hope that the Congress of these United States fully understands what is at stake; how important, how dependent the welfare of our constituents is on a healthy global economy. If we vote for this amendment, it will reflect a lack of understanding, truly an ignorance, of the role the United States must play as the leaders of this global economy. This is a terribly important amendment, not just because of the specifics of the amendment itself, but because of the signal it sends to the rest of the world. We have to send that signal. We have to be the leaders of the global economy. We have to assume our responsibility. Not only have we the strongest military, a military greater than all the other militaries in the world combined, but the principal reason we are the global leader is because of the strength of our economy, and the fact that we are prepared to do what is necessary to ensure the sustained prosperity of the rest of the world, which is the marketplace for our products today and whose economic stability will be the source of our security tomorrow.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I am sure that there are some people who are being hoisted on their own petard when they insist on points of order only to subsequently realize that there are some things that they really want added to an appropriation bill and are not able to add due to the same point of order problem. The gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), however, voted against the restrictive rule on this bill and I know has consistently supported child care, I doubt she has ever voted to cut child care. And I strongly agree with the intent of this amendment. I think we should allow Federal agencies the discretion to use their administrative expense money to provide child care for their employees. Between 1975 and 1994, over the last 20 years, the number of women in the labor force with children under the age of 6 increased from 39 percent to 60 percent. And more than half of all the children in this country 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. Think about that. Most of the children in this country under 1 year of age do not have their parent at home because their parents need to be in the workforce. A recent study shows that one out of every four Federal employees needs child care daily. Access to quality, affordable child care has become a number one issue for many parents across the country, including Federal employees. As a responsible employer, the Federal Government should be working to improve access to, and the affordability of, child care for its employees. In Congress, we have been working to find ways to encourage private businesses to do just that. If we look at our own record, we are doing a pretty good job. There are 1,400 private- employer-provided child care centers throughout the United States. But, by comparison, the Department of Defense has 850 centers for its enlisted employees, another 200 more for DOD civilian employees. But 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 have the added bonus of increased productivity because available child care will decrease the number of missed work hours that are lost due to child care crises. We also have the lure of quality, affordable child care that we can use in acquiring and retaining the best possible employees to work for our 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 on-site facility with electricity and furnishings. They are prohibited. That is the reason for this amendment. The Morella amendment would not force agencies to provide child care but would allow agencies to use their own administrative 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 budget at all. In addition, any profits that a facility might be able to acquire could be used to make child care more affordable for lower-income employees. Over the past several years, we have made tough choices, along with great progress, in cutting Federal expenditures and achieving fiscal responsibility in the budget. But 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 health care and 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, for that reason, this is a good amendment, and I would hope that we could find a way to make it in order to allow Federal agencies to exercise their discretion for the benefit not only of their employees but for all the people who will be better served by their Federal employees.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, since the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) has chosen to cite the administration's statement of policy, let me quote it. ``If debtors truly have the ability to repay a portion of their debt, after taking into account all relevant factors, including child support and alimony payments, a successful, supervised repayment plan under Chapter 13 rules could result in a more reliable payment of child support and alimony than would the unsupervised situation after Chapter 7 discharge.'' That is the point of this bill. With the Boucher amendment this Statement of Administration Policy is, in effect, an endorsement of this bill, certainly as it relates to child support. I thank the administration for its good judgment. I would bring this to the attention of all the Members of this body.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am a lead sponsor of this measure because the bankruptcy system in this country is not serving the national interest. What used to be the option of last resort has too often become the preferred option of choice, and so a legislative fix is vital to distinguish between those who truly need and deserve a fresh start and those capable of assuming greater responsibility and making good on at least some of what they owe. Mr. Chairman, unless steps are taken now to reform the bankruptcy system while economic times are good, we will not have the political resolve to fix it when the economy is not as strong. Today wages are up, unemployment is down, interest rates and inflation are low, but the rate of personal bankruptcies has increased dramatically. Last year personal bankruptcies rose 20 percent, reaching a record high of 1.4 million files. Think about it. More people filed for personal bankruptcy than graduated from college last year. What does that say about our country? And while many would like to blame the credit card industry for the sharp increase in bankruptcy filings, it is important to note that the credit card industry is not the impetus for the current bankruptcy crisis. More than 96 percent of credit card holders pay bills as agreed to, and only 1 percent ever end up in bankruptcy. According to a Federal Reserve Board survey last year credit cards account for a mere 3.7 percent of consumer debt, hardly large enough to cause the current bankruptcy crisis. While many may still want to vilify the shylocks of Shakespeare's day, the credit system of today is far more democratized. Creditors today include Main Street merchants who often sell products under installment plans, credit unions who include most Members of Congress and even State and local governments. Mr. Chairman, I have a letter here that I got from Mattress Discounters. These people have a customer base that is almost exclusively moderate income families who need their purchasing installment plan. Now they tell me that they receive almost 3,000 consumer bankruptcy notifications each month, 36,000 a year, and the cost to the company has risen to over $30 million a year. The irony of this situation is that the average debtor filing for bankruptcy protection has assets exceeding $184,000. But because of this consumer bankruptcy, the company had to close 50 stores across the country, and that meant the loss of jobs in communities all over the country as well as the fact that their customer base of moderate income people does not have access to this line of credit. People need that, and yet if we don't fix this system, we are foreclosing their credit opportunities. Mr. Chairman, the key issue is that it is not fair for households who pay their debts to pay $400 a year in added expenses to compensate for the bad debts of their neighbors who do not pay their debts. I hope Members will support this bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 423, legislation to extend the legislative authority for the Board of Regents of Gunston Hall to establish a memorial to honor a distinguished Virginian, George Mason. In 1776, George Mason wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the first document in America calling for freedom of the press, freedom of religion, proscription of unreasonable searches, and the right to a speedy trial. The Virginia Declaration of Rights not only served as a model for our national Bill or Rights; but historians believe that Mason's refusal to sign the Constitution for its failure, initially, to include a declaration of rights was a major impetus for eventual adoption of the first ten amendments of the Constitution. George Mason sacrificed friendships by insisting that a strong national government could not be secured without also firmly establishing individual rights, and Mason inevitably chose his family over politics. He retired from public office following the Constitutional Convention and died just a few years later in 1792. His contemporaries, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, lived decades longer and were elected presidents of the United States, and thus Mason's contributions were soon overshadowed. During the 101st Congress legislation authorizing a private, nonprofit organization to establish a memorial to George Mason on federal land in the District of Columbia passed and was signed by then- President George Bush. In the 102nd Congress, a resolution passed concurring that George Mason was an individual ``of preeminent historical significance to the nation,'' and authorized the placement of the memorial within select Area I lands, in sight of the memorials of two of Mason's closest friends: George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. The legislation was signed into law on April 28, 1992 and approved by the National Capital Memorial Committee in December 1993. To pay homage to a man whose ideas played a prominent role in the founding of the American republic, a fitting memorial has been designed for this site, located between Ohio Drive and the 14th Street Bridge, overlooking the Tidal Basin. The memorial designs have been completed and submitted for review to all necessary advisory and review boards and by agreement, the United States Park Service is to maintain the memorial once completed. In accordance with the Commemorative Works Act of 1986, one million dollars must be raised in non-federal funds to construct this historic monument and ground breaking must occur no later than August 1998. The Board of Regents of Gunston Hall Plantation, a historical organization that oversees Mason's family home in Fairfax County, is dedicated to raising the necessary funds for the monument and seeing this important project through to its completion, however, the August 1998 deadline is rapidly approaching. At this time, fundraising efforts, while successful, will not be completed by the August 1998 deadline. That's why I support this necessary legislation granting an extension until August 2000. The Commemorative Works Act requires two separate acts of Congress before a memorial may be placed in Area I lands. This monument has met both requirements. The final battle is a fundraising one and the Board of Regents of Gunston Hall has a plan of attack. Last year, they launched Liberty 20000, a campaign to share George Mason's legacy of liberty. The Board of Regents hope to build an endowment fund to ensure a secure future for Gunston Hall and attain the necessary non-federal funds to break ground and complete their efforts to bring George Mason's legacy to the Mall. This is non-controversial legislation that passed the Senate and the House Resources Committee unanimously. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this three-year extension so we may properly commemorate this great statesman and Virginian, George Mason. Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the gentleman. I am worried. I am worried that we will not maintain this momentum of fiscal responsibility. Does the gentleman imply that the Senate is not worried about fiscal responsibility? The Spratt budget is very much like the Senate budget. That is why I suggest it is a doable budget. It is very much like the President's budget. And would the gentleman not agree that the balanced budget agreement of just a few months ago reflected our concerns, was a responsible instrument? The Spratt budget is virtually the same as the balanced budget agreement. It continues the balanced budget agreement, it continues our commit to fiscal responsibility. That is why it is doable, and that is why the Republican budget is not doable, because it departs from the balanced budget agreement that we agreed to just a few months ago. That was my point, and I think it is a very valid one, and the Senate happens to agree with us. That is why I want my colleagues to vote for this budget.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, our colleagues should vote for this budget, everybody on both sides of the aisle, for 3 reasons. First, it is a honest budget. No games playing. What we see is what we get. Secondly, it is a responsible budget. It keeps us on the road to fiscal responsibility, it maintains a budget surplus, it does not get us into the kind of partisan political gamesmanship that ultimately resulted in $300 billion deficits and a $5.4 trillion Federal debt. It keeps the momentum going towards fiscal responsibility that was reflected in the Bipartisan Balanced Budget Agreement just a few months ago. And thirdly and perhaps most importantly, it is doable. We pass this budget, and we get into conference with the Senate, and we can agree to a budget within a matter of weeks. We will get this budget enacted, and then we will get our appropriations bills enacted. And then we do not have to worry about the government shutting down. We do not have to worry about this Congress being embarrassed at our lack of inaction or lack of ability to work together in a constructive way. I want my colleagues to think about this: The Republican chairman of the Senate Budget Committee called the budget that is the alternative, the Republican budget that is the alternative to this that we are offering, ``a mockery''. Senator Stevens, the Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee, called the majority's budget, a budget that would result in ``Congress not being able to function''. Why? Because it has got things in it that my colleagues cannot go home and justify to their constituents. Mr. Chairman, I dare anybody that has Federal employees in their congressional district to go out and explain why they voted to cut the Federal employees health benefits plan down to a 50 percent required contribution on the part of employees. Go ahead and explain it, justify it. My colleagues should not do this to themselves. Vote for the Spratt budget.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the budget resolution because again we are playing politics more than balancing budgets. Why, for example, did not the rule allow the Stenholm-Minge budget to be considered? The reason it did not was because it probably would have passed, because it is virtually identical to the Senate budget resolution. Instead we are on the path that we were on in the 104th Congress that led to two government shutdowns. Why are we doing this again? When you look at this budget resolution, you realize that this budget cannot pass, that we cannot reach agreement on its specifics nor its cumulative impact. For example, $3.3 billion is cut from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. CBO estimates that means Federal employees, instead of paying 28 percent for their health insurance which they do now, in 7 years will be paying 50 percent of their health insurance premiums. Last year we took $5 billion away from Federal employees, and we said in return we are going to at least provide health insurance security, then this year we take it away from them. How are we going to provide the kind of quality professional Federal work force that we need when we cannot retain and recruit people, when we cannot even keep our promises? Throughout this budget we have got the very kinds of things we encountered in the 104th Congress, things that are going to create problems throughout the rest of this term, things that are bound to create problems within our appropriations bills and are going to put us in the very same situation that caused us to shut down the government. We should not be on this path. We should be finding a way to reach agreement. The Stenholm-Minge budget resolution would have enabled us to do that. That is why it is not part of this rule. That is why we should oppose this rule. What we ought to be doing is trying to find reconciliation instead of trying to foment division. When you look at what we do to dependent groups, whether it be veterans, whether it be Federal employees, whether it be people dependent on Medicare or the people that are affected by welfare reform, or children stuck in inferior education systems--all of them get hurt far more than our constituents would want. Vote against this budget rule and the budget resolution.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Metropolitan Washington Regional Transportation Act'' with my colleague, Senator Chuck Robb, to address the traffic congestion problems within the metropolitan Washington D.C. region. We now have the second longest average commuting time in the nation. According to the Greater Washington Board of Trade, this increased commuting time and congestion costs each man, woman, and child in the region more than $800 per year in lost time, wasted fuel, and environmental damage. Long commutes and traffic congestion have also become quality of life issues to area residents, robbing many families of the one commodity Washingtonians never seem to have enough of--time. Some drivers facing a longer commute have even become a safety hazard as they race recklessly to cut a precious few minutes form their daily commute. Last year's tragedies on I-95 and the George Washington Parkway are still fresh on everyone's mind. For those who lack cars, the distance between employment opportunities and affordable housing has grown more and more difficult to traverse. Our economic prosperity and quality of life hinge on improving our congestion problem. Unfortunately, as we look to the future the traffic situation only grows worse. Even with increase in federal funds Virginia will receive under legislation reauthorizing federal surface transportation programs, this region will still fall seriously short of meeting the growing demand for transportation improvements. For the period of 1990 through 2020, this region can expect both a 43 percent increase in population and 43 percent increase in employment. This growth and increased dependency on the automobile is expected to increase by 79 percent the number of vehicle miles traveled in the region by 2020. The Board of Trade estimates that transportation spending is expected to fall short of the region's transportation needs by more than $500 million annually. Any solution to current and future congestion demands strategic investment in both our road and mass transit system. It demands better land use and planning decisions and better interjurisdictional cooperation. And it also demands that this region come together and raise additional revenue to finance priority transportation projects that will provide immediate congestion relief. It may not be a popular idea, but we have to do more, and we have to do it ourselves. Federal and state taxes levied on our citizens will always take a ``haircut'' on before spending any of the balance back in this region. It seems to me, that the only way to ensure that we get 100 percent of funds we need is to raise more ourselves and spend them locally. It is also a process that ensures that the money gets spent where we determine it is needed most. I think the key to public support is identifying a list of priority projects that could be completed on a fast track providing the public with the assurances that their additional tax dollars will buy specific congestion relief. A large number of urban communities have already established a dedicated funding source for their transit systems. In the past, leaders from this region have shared a vision and worked successfully together to address important transportation needs, through such institutions as the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board at the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. We need a similar vision to carry us forward another 30 years. The Metropolitan Washington Regional Transportation Act will help us craft this vision. The legislation we are introducing has five key elements: (1) It provides a new option to help the metropolitan Washington region more effectively address its transportation needs; (2) it empowers the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board to consult with the metropolitan Washington region jurisdictions and the public to achieve consensus on a list of critical transportation projects and a funding mechanism that are needed to address the growing congestion crisis in the region but cannot be funded within the current and forecasted federal, state and local funding levels for such projects; (3) it establishes a Corporation with the power to accept revenue and issue debt to provide short-term funding for projects that have been agreed to by the region; (4) it grants consent to the metropolitan Washington region jurisdictions to enter into an interstate compact or agreement that would help meet the region's long-term transportation needs; and (5) it provides $60 million in matching federal grants as an incentive to encourage the creation of the federal corporation. This legislation provides a framework under which a regional transportation needs could be addressed. It requires consultation with state and local officials at every level and in an effort to win state support, the legislation preciously guards state control of both the corporation and the authority through veto power. It does not raise anyone's taxes, but it does provide a mechanism or a ``vessel'' through which the local jurisdictions could coordinate and commit future revenues to finance the construction of specific transportation projects that otherwise will not get built or built anytime soon. The ``Metropolitan Washington Regional Transportation Act'' gives us a choice and helps start a debate on how we should take control and improve our future transportation system and improve our quality of life. Our failure to act and meet our transportation needs will have a much higher cost. The Board of Trade places the cumulative regional economic losses from the failure to meet our transportation needs in the year 2020 at between $70.2 billion to $182 billion. That economic loss includes: a 350 percent or $345 million increase in shipping costs; $1.3 billion to $2.6 billion in higher warehousing and inventory costs; $1,365 per household per year higher consumer costs; and more than $1,000 per household per year in higher personal travel costs. Mr. Speaker, this region has a choice. I am optimistic that when given the facts and the various options our citizens and elected officials will take control of our emerging transportation crisis and make the right choice. I am including with my statement a copy of a letter supporting this legislation that was received from the county chairs and mayors of all eight Northern Virginia jurisdictions. This letter reflects a commitment local leaders have made to let this debate go forward and make some tough decisions. I applaud their leadership. I would also like to express my appreciation to Fairfax City Mayor John Mason and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Government for generating critical local support and throughtful counsel on crafting this proposal. Hon. Charles C. Robb, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. James P. Moran, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Robb and Mr. Moran: We, the mayors and chairs of the Northern Virginia cities and counties, appreciate and support legislation you are preparing to introduce that is designed to help meet this region's critical transportation needs through improved coordination, cooperation and additional funding. We believe the approach outlined in the Metropolitan Washington Regional Transportation Act will provide a mechanism to address the serious shortfall in funding for transportation infrastructure needs in the metropolitan Washington region. The Washington region is unique. We are the only metropolitan area in which multiple states and a Federal district are engaged in addressing transportation issues. As noted in your discussion draft for the proposed Act, it is in the Nation's interest that the region have a transportation system that is supportive of the Federal interest in having an efficient and effective regional transportation system, as well as our role in being an international tourist attraction (some 20,000,000 visitors today; anticipated to be 40,000,000 in 20 years). Your proposed legislation touches on the two key elements that are needed to stimulate additional funding in the Washington region--a ``mechanism'' that can receive and distribute funds as well as upfront funding from the Congress that will ``prime the pump.'' We are clear that the proposed ``mechanism'' does not have independent taxing authority. We, the elected leaders of Northern Virginia's cities and counties, appreciate your efforts on the region's behalf. We encourage and strongly support your initiative. With warm personal regards, Yours sincerely, Mayor, City of Alexandria, Mayor, City of Fairfax, Mayor, City of Falls Church, Mayor, City of Manassas, Chairman, Arlington County Board, Chairman, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, Chairman, Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, Chairman, Prince William Board of County Supervisors.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, if one goes to a military treatment facility, it is not the first payer, but for many, there is about 70 percent of military retirees.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

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