Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

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

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I thank my two friends and colleagues for expanding the battlefield upon which this amendment might be considered, but again let me just say that without this amendment the bill would have created a situation where some banks can continue to sell insurance under current Federal and State guidelines while other banks would be forced to buy an insurance agency first before they can sell the very same insurance products. I appreciate the support that it has.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I know when I am ahead and I will keep this brief, but just simply explain that this amendment would sunset, that is, repeal after 5 years the requirement that any bank that is not currently selling insurance products would not have to purchase an insurance agency that has been regulated within their State for at least 2 years. That reduces the competition, and this is obviously a compromise amendment that will at least take this prohibition away and produce greater competition in the marketplace. It was a fairly restrictive amendment. By providing 5 years before the sunset, I do not think any of the industries are going to take particular exception to it. I appreciate the fact that there is no opposition to it. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, in addition to having an opportunity to pass an amendment that I thought should have been passed back in January of 1995, that I had offered then, I think probably it helps in a Republican Congress to have a Republican offeree, and I trust that this bill will pass, although I suspect that there will be more opposition to it than is present here tonight. This is also an opportunity to correct a technical problem that we have encountered with the Congressional Budget Office's scoring of State and local mandates. That is why I urge everyone to support the Davis-Moran amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, in 1992-1993, I introduced unfunded mandates legislation. This was during the time when the Democratic Party was in the majority. I could not get it out of the Government Operations Committee. My friend and colleague from California, I am sure, recalls that he also had unfunded mandates legislation which suffered the same fate. Then when the Republican majority took over the Congress, it, of course, became the first legislation to be enacted. At that time, when that bill was debated, I had an amendment. That amendment was designed to correct an oversight which was that it did not include private sector mandates. It only applied to public sector mandates. It did not get included because the House leadership did not give its stamp of approval at that time, and it was not part of the Republican contract on America. So it did not get the votes necessary for adoption. The legislation that we are considering today does just what that amendment was designed to do. It is the same amendment. That is why I support this rule and this bill because it does correct something that was left unfinished when we passed the original unfunded mandates legislation. My original legislation actually only required that if it is an unfunded mandate, that you come up with the actual cost that is being passed on to States and localities and the private sector. The gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) went further and required a point of order, which is ultimately what got legislated. There is one other aspect, though, of the unfunded mandates issue which pertains to a public sector mandate, and that affects particularly the Medicaid program. We will address that when the Davis- Moran amendment is raised, and I know that that will have the full support of this body as well. Again, this is a bill that will correct what was unfinished the last time we had unfunded mandates legislation, and I think that the rule and the bill will undoubtedly get passed overwhelmingly. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, that was not exactly the point I was trying to make, but I am certainly willing to let that stand in the record if my friend and colleague wants to suggest that. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) is known not only by his name but by his intellect, and I am more than happy to join him in this amendment. I was actually referring in a more general way. I was not suggesting that the only way we could get our amendment passed was if it had the gentleman's name on it. The gentleman has worked very hard on this, but I will now amplify some of the points that the gentleman made. The reason why the amendment is necessary is because the Congressional Budget Office determined that any new Federal mandates in the area of entitlement programs are not subject to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act's point of order procedure if there is sufficient flexibility in the affected entitlement program to offset the new State and local costs. The best example of this is on June 10th, 1996, when CBO ruled that a point of order would not exist for a proposed cap on Federal Medicaid expenditures and any other mandatory Federal aid programs except food stamps. The effect of this interpretation is to exempt more than two- thirds of all granted aid. In other words, all the mandatory entitlement programs from coverage under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. What may appear to be an optional Federal mandate program from CBO's perspective, such as, for example, expanded Medicaid coverage to pregnant women and children, is not an optional program from the State's perspective. I do not know of any State willing to reduce Medicaid coverage to pregnant women and children in order to help offset the cost of new Federal mandates. Our amendment would correct this implementation problem by adding a few simple words to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to clarify that any cut or cap of safety net programs constitutes an intergovernmental mandate unless State and local governments are given new or additional flexibility and the authority to offset the cut or the cap. This amendment has been endorsed by the five major State and local organizations. It ought to be supported. I urge all my colleagues to support it, and, again, I am honored to be able to offer it in coordination with my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis). I will conclude at this point, Mr. Chairman, feeling as though I have given my cosponsor more than sufficient recognition.

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, affirmative action is not a perfect policy. In an ideal world, we would not need affirmative action; we would not even want it. We would admit everyone, regardless of past practices of discrimination, regardless of the need to promote diversity in higher education, regardless of anything but merit. We do not live in a perfect world. We live in a society and in an economy that has been shaped by our history. That history includes an economy that was based upon slavery. It includes, at one time, a definition of African Americans as being worth only a fraction of the value of white Americans. It is a history that includes an official policy of school segregation. It includes a denial of voting rights, of Jim Crow laws. In my own State of Virginia, it is a history that includes, in our own time, in our lifetimes, an official policy of massive resistance to integrated classrooms. The closest correlation with academic success of any student is the educational experience of their parents. But what if parents and grandparents and great grandparents were denied access to a decent education as the official policy of the government? Our government denied African American children access to a decent education. We cannot pretend that did not happen. While it may not be the fairest way, affirmative action is still probably the most effective way to overcome these official policies of denial of access. Even with the help of affirmative action policies, twice as high a percentage of whites have college degrees as African Americans, and only 9 percent of Hispanics have college degrees. Prohibiting affirmative action policies, as the Riggs amendment would, only worsens this disparity. The reverse of affirmative action policies in California and Texas public universities led to a dramatic decrease in the enrollment of African American students. All of those students that would have been admitted had high grades and were all fully qualified for admittance. Someday, we will not need affirmative action, but that is not this day. I urge that we oppose this amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Riggs-Roemer Amendment. I agree with my colleagues about the importance of ensuring autonomy for university administrators for their own athletic programs. I am astounded at the thought of the compliance issues associated with the provision in the bill this amendment proposes to strike. I am also concerned that this is a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the gains that we have made through the Title IX program. The provision in H.R. 6 that the Riggs-Roemer amendment would eliminate would force recipients of Higher Education Act funds to justify cuts in college athletic programs. Forcing an institution to maintain a failed program for four years after they report the cut is ludicrous. Imagine if this requirement were imposed on Congress. We would not be able to cut a program even if an emergency demanded it. We would never accept such a restriction and should not impose one on university administrators. This provision is an attempt to allow colleges and universities to use Title IX as a scapegoat for cuts to other athletic programs. No one understands better the difficult decisions that balancing a budget brings than we do in Congress. Title IX, which creates equal access to important programs for young men and women, should not suffer because of painful budgetary decisions. Last year Title IX celebrated its 25th anniversary. Since that time, women's participation in school athletic programs has increased dramatically. This increase has benefited young women in many aspects of life. Young women who play sports are more likely to graduate from high school, and less likely to use drugs or have an unintended pregnancy. They reap multiple health benefits from athletic participation, including a 40%-60% decrease in their risk of breast cancer. In addition, athletic participation helps improve self-esteem and discipline. I urge my colleagues to support Title IX and preserve autonomy in decisions at institutions of higher education. Please support the Riggs-Roemer amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I will not take issue with my colleague from California. I do not want to speak for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), but there is no question in my mind that I am not as smart as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). I would never try to compete with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia on any kind of an intellectual or even a rhetorical basis. I am going to, though, plead with my colleagues on the Democratic side, where the opposition to this bill lies, to set aside the suspect political motivation behind this bill and to put aside all that kind of lofty ideological rhetoric that partisanship can inspire. I do not necessarily disagree with all that rhetoric in principle. But I am going to ask you to strip away the esoteric and political issues that normally accompany this issue and look at the essence of what this bill does. Because all it is is an additional $7 million that can only go to poor families, only poor families. If it is not spent, it will not go to DC, nor to any other educational effort of merit. It will be lost. A lost opportunity. What does it do that is so threatening? It lets parents pick where their kids will go to school. Those parents can choose the school my children go to, only a couple of miles away from the District of Columbia. It is in an almost entirely minority neighborhood, a public elementary school, with an African American principal, and an African American administration. Almost the entire student body is minority. But it is safe. The children that go to this school get the basic education they need, and they are going to get to go to college if they have the will and make the effort. It is a credit to the public school system as so many thousands of schools in this Nation are a credit to our investment in public education. I am also going to ask you to let me make this a little more personal. A few months ago, my daughter broke out crying at the dinner table. She said, ``Mommy, Daddy, I cannot keep up with the other kids in my class. I cannot think as fast as them. I am the worst in the class.'' We comforted her and explained to her, ``Honey, the radiation that killed the cancer cells in your brain also killed the brain cells, but we are going to send you to a tutor,'' which we do, ``and we are going to make sure you can keep up.'' Expensive? Very. All out-of-pocket. Worth it? Of course. But what about the dozens of other kids in the same condition at D.C. Children's Hospital, almost all of them minority, low-income families? Why should they be doomed because of the accident of their birth? Their parents do not have any possibility of enabling their kids to keep pace, of realizing their potential, of ever going to college. This bill gives them a faint, dim glimmer of hope because it can be used for tutoring that they could not otherwise afford. Madam Speaker 85 percent of the children in Ward 3, the wealthiest ward in this city, have a choice of schools, and they choose to send their kids to private schools. Why should the parents in other wards of the city not have the same choice? Why should their kids suffer so because of the accident of their birth? We spend more on D.C. public schools and get less out of them than any other school state system in the country. Three-fourths of their 8th grade students flunk basic math. Forty percent drop out. A minority of high school graduates are able to qualify for a college education. On average they're at least 2 years behind their peers in other school systems. Why should we condemn all of these children to continue to suffer such inequity because we want to uphold our lofty principles and our traditional politics? Of course we believe in public schools. But we also believe in the intrinsic worth of every one of those children born in the District of Columbia. They have the same right anyone else has. Why are you denying that right to even 2,000 children who could break out of the bonds of a failed school system? Because you want to maintain the status quo? Because you do not want to admit that the current failed condition is the reality of this failed school system? It is not fair to deny hope to even 2,000 children. What is fair is to support this bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a great American and resident of Northern Virginia, William H. von Alven, who has served the country faithfully and ably for twenty-six years at the Federal Communications Commission. Mr. von Alven will retire from the FCC on April 30, 1998, and I am pleased to join Congressman Frank Wolf, FCC Chairman William E. Kennard and the employees of the FCC in congratulating Mr. von Alven on this remarkable accomplishment. Mr. von Alven is seventy-eight years old and has worked right up to the present point. Mr. von Alven received his B.S. from the University of Idaho where he was elected to membership in Phi Beta Kappa. After pursuing graduate studies in engineering and management at Harvard and UCLA, he worked extensively in the private sector and edited the best selling book Reliability Engineering, which was in print for more than 30 years. Mr. von Alven served as president of many communications industry institutes and societies, and chaired several international conferences. He received the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Centennial Medal, and a Department of Defense award for his contributions to the Advisory Group on the Reliability of Electronic Equipment. In 1996, he was awarded the Telecommunications Industry Association's Certificate of Recognition and the FCC's Catherine Forester Public Service Award. Mr. von Alven will retire as a Senior Public Utilities Specialist. He has managed the Part 68 terminal equipment registration program since its inception at the FCC in 1976 and has made many important contributions to the FCC. He will be greatly missed by his friends and colleagues at the Commission. Mr. von Alven is just one example of the many extraordinary federal employees residing in my district. Through his long years of service, he is certainly deserving of special recognition by the Congress.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the distinguished ranking member that he makes an excellent point. Here we cannot even meet the 60 percent requirement and they want to raise it to a 67 percent requirement. It seems to me, again, that this is just window dressing and not substantive legislation. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for raising an excellent point.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, obviously they felt that they got the political benefit from putting in that three-fifths rule requirement. But then when it would apply, they got a rule that waived it. We raised an objection but nobody seemed to care.

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Virginia for yielding time to me. I rise in opposition to this resolution to amend the U.S. Constitution to require a two-thirds vote to raise Federal taxes. Last year, the Washington Post characterized this best under the editorial, Show Vote on Tax Day. That does not apply this year, because we were in recess when April 15 came and went, but the strongest argument is still applicable, we should not be using the Constitution as a political prop. We know the political advantages of doing this kind of thing, but let me tell the Members some of the disadvantages of doing it and some of the fatal flaws that are involved with this legislation. One of them is that we fail to define a number of the most important terms. For example, what is ``de minimis''? We do not explain whether we are talking about a $50 million tax increase or a $1 billion tax increase. What constitutes a ``broadening of the tax base''? Whose interpretation is it? The leadership of the Congress? When we are talking about something this serious, clearly we need to define precisely what it is we are talking about. But it also needs to be stated and considered by the majority that this would preclude any fundamental reform of the IRS Code, because we cannot have a fundamental reform of the IRS Code without affecting tax rates and altering the present tax base. Any changes that would broaden the base, such as closing corporate loopholes or replacing the current tax system, as the majority leader wants to do with the new flat tax, or the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means wants to do with a national sales tax, would now require a \2/3\ vote and then ultimately would not be determined on the floor of the House. Instead, there issues would have to be determined across the street in the Supreme Court. But let me tell my colleagues about another issue, one that smacks of hypocrisy. Let me bring the House back to 1995 when this body passed the Contract on America, and we had one provision which was the most celebrated. First of all we had a rule that passed in January, and I think all the Members remember that. We had to have a three-fifths vote to raise any taxes. It said ``no bill or joint resolution or amendment or conference report carrying a Federal income tax increase shall be considered or passed or agreed to unless determined by three-fifths of all the Members voting.'' That is a rule that applied to all of our legislation. We then had the Contract With America Tax Relief Act of 1995 three months later, which became the first violation of that very rule. I raised a point of order because that so-called Tax Relief Act actually increased capital gains taxes on small business from 14 percent to 19.8 percent. There was a point of order that should have been applied. In a precipitous ruling it was originally rejected, but then I got a letter from the House Parliamentarian saying absolutely, it was a violation of the House rule. Subsequently and because of that ruling, the House leadership, the Committee on Rules, has had to waive the three-fifths vote requirement on every single occasion they have brought up a tax bill. Four occasions in the last term. For the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, they had to waive the rule. For the Medicare Preservation Act, they had to waived the rule. The Health Coverage Affordability and Portability Act, waive the three-fifths requirement. Likewise, the Small Business Protection Act. Four times we waived the rule that required a three- fifths vote because we never had three-fifths of the votes to pass just those basic relatively non-controversial tax law changes. Now, let me tell my colleagues about another more recent example, and that is the tax relief bill we just passed as part of the Balanced Budget Act. It was a compromise. The majority and the minority both agreed to it. It was called the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. It closed some tax loopholes, but it imposed a new aviation excise tax and broadened the tax base to help pay for some of the bill's tax cuts. That also did not get three-fifths. It was a violation of the House rule. Mr. Speaker, we know if this was passed we could never do that kind of a thing. We could never have that kind of a Balanced Budget Act. Lastly, I want to go even further back to the Articles of Confederation. Initially they thought this was a good idea. They said that nine out of the original 13 States would have to vote. Article 9 of the Articles of Confederation required just this kind of supermajority, nine out of 13 States. If we look back at some of the debate that occurred in the Constitutional Convention, we will find that tax increases became too politicized. They could never get 9 out of 13 States to actually do what was necessary to keep this Republic going. And so in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention our Founding Fathers recognized that this was a supreme defect and they established a national government that could impose and enforce laws and collect revenues through a simple majority rule. Mr. Speaker, my point is, this is a legislative responsibility. Do not take this legislative responsibility and pass the buck, send it across the street to the Supreme Court and have these difficult issues resolved by the Judicial Branch. They should properly be resolved by the legislative branch, by Congress. I do agree with that Post article last year that this is another ``show vote.'' We do not need show votes in the Congress. What we need is people who are willing to make the tough choices, who are willing to look back at history and realize that the public is best served by majority rule and a Congress with the courage to do the right thing ahead of the politically expedient thing. This constitutional amendment is not the right thing to do, it is at best a politically expedient ``show vote''.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, my colleague Mr. Davis of Virginia and I are honored to recognize four outstanding Northern Virginians who are being recognized this week by the Fairfax County Federation of Citizens Association as the Citizen of the Year and as Citation of Merit Award recipients for their community contributions. The Fairfax County Federation of Citizens Associations is a volunteer, nonpartisan, umbrella for the organized citizenry of Fairfax County. For the past forty years it has represented the interests of hundreds of civic, condominium and town house associations working together with the magisterial district councils of citizens associations. Minerva W. Andrews is the Fairfax County of Citizens Associations 1998 Citizen of the Year award recipient. Ms. Andrew's record of lifetime achievement and her dedication to country issues sets a shining example of public service for the Fairfax County community. Born and raised in South Carolina, Ms. Andrews distinguished herself by pursuing a career in law at a time when social mores directed women toward ``traditional'' occupations. She came to Fairfax County after graduating from the University of Virginia's Law School in 1948. Formerly a partner with McGuire, Woods, Battle and Boothe, Ms. Andrews specialized in real estate law. Her professional interest and civic commitments dovetailed as she worked to strengthen land development environmental practices. Ms. Andrews assisted in drafting the very first Erosion Control Ordinance adopted by Fairfax County. During the 1950's, when Virginia entered the era of ``massive resistance,'' Ms. Andrews served as the Fairfax League of Women Voters' President. Under her leadership, the LWV strongly supported integration of public schools and took the lead in opposing the states' actions to close the public school system. Ms. Andrews has been active in providing opportunities for young people throughout her life. She served on the Fairfax County Vocational Educational Foundation Board for 25 years (renamed the Foundation for Applied Technical Education) and served as the organization's President from 1977 to 1980. Since her retirement, she has increased her participation on the National Society of Arts and Letters Board, an organization that recognizes talented students in the creative and literary arts. First associated with the Washington Chapter of the National Society of Arts and Letters, she served as the Chapter President from 1973-1974 and more recently has served as the National President from 1994-1996. Ms. Andrews has been an active member of the Fairfax-Falls Church United Way Executive Committee for many years and is a past chair of the Government Relations Committee. Ms. Andrews was an early supporter of the Fairfax Committee of 100 having served on its Board and as its volunteer registered Agent. Until her retirement she also served for twelve years as a board member of the Greater Washington Research Center, a forum supported by the business community to encourage research on regional business, social issues and public policy, with an emphasis on transportation issues. In addition to her county-wide and national activities, she has been active in her home community of McLean, serving as the president of the McLean Citizens' Associates from 1971-1972 and working with her husband Robert in forming the McLean Planning Commission that helped secure a federal grant for McLean's central business district. She has also served as a board member of the McLean Citizens' Foundation, the McLean Community Center and the McLean Project for the Arts. She is a life Elder in the Lewinsville Presbyterian Church and has just completed a term as vice President on the board of the National Capitol Presbytery. She is also on the board and serves as counsel for the Lewinsville Retirement Residence. In addition to Ms. Andrews, three citizens will be honored with Citations of Merit. They include: Mildred Corbin who will be recognized for her work in many county wide organizations such as the National Political Congress of Black Women, the Fairfax Care Network for Seniors, the Fairfax Commission for Women, the Route One Human Service Task Force, the Fairfax Committee of 100, and the Steering Committee for the Human Services Alliance to name just a few. She is also a two- term member of United Community Ministries and dedicates time to the Mount Vernon Mental Health Center and the Eleanor Kennedy Homeless Shelter. She actively supports Fairfax Offender Aid and Restoration Program, Black Women United for Action, the National Association of Retired Federal Employees and the American Association of Retired Persons. In 1997, she became the District representative to the Fairfax Area Commission on Aging. Ms. Andrews also participates in the Pinewood Lake Civic Association. Her volunteer contributions span more than forty years of service to young people, as well as senior citizens in the Northern Virginian community. Shirely O. Nelson will also be recognized for her contributions to the Chantilly community and for her county-wide volunteerism. Her work has focused on innovative and practical youth programs, such as the Chantilly Pyramid Minority Achievement Committee (CPMSAC), a program that serves twenty eight schools. CPMSAC works toward improving youth motivation and awards academic achievement; it is currently in its thirteenth year. She also has been a lynchpin in saving and expanding the Saturday Toward Excellence Program (STEP). After serving on the Fairfax County Council of PTA for seven years, Ms. Nelson became its first African-American President in 1996. Since then she has spearheaded planning and communications program activities for the PTA. She has also coordinated community activities such as the first County- wide extended Family Solutions Conference. Additionally, Ms. Nelson founded and directs the Young Voices of Chantilly, an ensemble of fifteen elementary, middle and high school students. This group provides positive and inspirational messages to youth through song. Thomas E. Waldrop will add the Fairfax County Federation of Citizens' Associations Citation of Merit award to his 1998 Jinx Hazel Arts Citizen of the Year Award, a Northern Virginia Community Foundation Founders Award in 1997 and his designation in 1996 as the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce Citizen of the Year. He has served for an unprecedented third term as Chairman of the Board of the Arts Council and is on the Board of Directors for numerous arts and educational organizations. In addition, he has supported many county-wide and national human service causes such as the American Heart Association, United Way, the Hospice of Northern Virginia, the Women's Center, the Adopt a Family Program, and Ronald McDonald House to name only a few. Mr. Speaker, we thank you for this opportunity to recognize such valuable members of the Northern Virginia community. We wish each of them the best in their endeavors to improve the lives of our constituents. Their life time dedication to volunteering is truly an inspiration to us all.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Forest Recovery and Protection Act (HR 3530). The bill, introduced by House Agriculture Chairman Bob Smith (OR), creates a five-year national program allowing the Secretary of Agriculture to identify and pursue an unlimited number of ``forest health recovery areas and projects'' within the National Forest Service. That means that logging of our National Forests could occur anywhere in the National Forests without any limits on the number or sizes of the logging projects. This bill would allow unlimited clearcuts, invasion sand logging of roadless areas and cutting of old growth forests. This bill reduces the level of agency review and public comment to a level significantly lower than protections provided by the National Environmental Policy Act. The bill creates an off-budget fund in which 100% of the receipts from logging projects would go to the local counties to fund schools and roads. By linking funding for local projects to logging, this off- budget fund will create enormous and inappropriate financial incentives for the Forest Service to pursue logging projects in every National Forest. If this bill is passed, we can soon expect public school teachers coming to Congress to lobby for more logging projects so that they can teach school. The off-budget fund that this bill would create within the Forest Service would bypass the Appropriations process. The off-budget fund would be completely unaccountable to Congress and mirror problems found in the existing Salvage Fund, Knudsen-Vandenberg and Brush Disposal Funds. This bill attempts to correct a forest health crisis that the USDA and environmental groups say does not exist. The recommendations of this bill are based on pseudo-scientific research and questionable conclusions. This bill is opposed by Democrats, Republicans, environmental and religious groups. Environmental groups (more than 100 groups including Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, Friends of the Earth, PIRG, Kettle Range Conservation Group, Western Ancient Forest Campaign) and religious groups (Presbyterian Church, United Methodist, Reform Judaism) have contacted my office in opposition to this bill. This bill would eradicate environmental protections provided by the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act. The American public does not support this bill. A clear majority of Americans nationwide oppose commercial logging in National Forests President Clinton has already said that he will veto this bill. I urge you to vote no on H.R. 3530.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the misguided Mexico City policy is not the only reason to oppose this bill. This bill will have a profoundly important impact on our nation's foreign policy. We have heard today that this bill streamlines our foreign policy agencies. Mr. Speaker, this bill streamlines our foreign policy agencies in the same way that last year's tax bill simplified the tax code. It is riddled with inconsistencies. For example, it claims to pay back dues to the United Nations, but actually increases them. It claims to streamline the State Department, but it establishes a new regulatory system to micromanage embassy staff. Never before have we tried to micromanage what the State Department can do with its individual embassies and their staffing policies. It claims to get tough on war criminals like Saddam Hussein, but, actually, it cuts U.S. involvement in the international criminal justice system. Furthermore, the reorganization plan has simply not been well thought out in my estimation. We need only look to the genocide that occurred in Bosnia and Rwanda because of the hatred that was fanned by an evil propaganda machine. How, then, can we abolish the United States Information Agency? In reality, that is what we do by incorporating it within the State Department. It needs its independence. Misinformation is best attacked at the grassroots level in an objective, credible fashion, not as part of a tightly controlled foreign policy agenda. Our U.S. Information Agency should be able to provide the kind of information that relies upon local opinion leaders, not merely heads of state with all of their political agendas. I have great respect for the State Department, but USIA is independent for a reason. It guarantees that the focus will be on the unfettered, objective truth. This bill zeroes out the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency at a time when nonproliferation efforts have never been more critical. Mr. Speaker, I also am especially disappointed that we have not been able to include an agreeable compromise on the Mexico City policy. The conference agreement still includes the inhumane Mexico City language that denies some of the most destitute people in the world the ability to choose healthy and safe family planning practices while also denying them their health practitioners the fundamental right of free speech. This is another of those misguided attempts that some people in the majority have made to deny economically disadvantaged women, both here and abroad, access to quality, reproductive health care and the information they need to plan their families. The leadership knows that the Hyde amendment already ensures that no U.S. funding is being spent on abortions, and yet they would jeopardize final passage of this important legislation by including this regressive language under the guise of reducing the number of abortions performed with U.S. tax dollars. Studies have shown that family planning funds actually decrease the number of abortions performed. Private, non-governmental organization funds save lives and empower people. This bill does not let them accomplish this most critical mission and should be defeated.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this morning, with my colleagues Connie Morella, Zoe Lofgren, Henry Waxman, Nick Lampson, and Nita Lowey, we are introducing the Driver Record Information Verification System Act or DRIVERS Act for short. This legislation is being introduced in response to the tragic and senseless death of a local and promising young student Benjamin Cooper. Last summer, a commercial truck driver with a lengthy record of driving violations, at least 22 in the past year and at least 31 over the past ten years, was permitted to get behind the wheel and continue to drive. On August 12th, the truck driver ran a red light, overturned and crashed into the car driven by Ben Cooper. The Washington Post in a September 3rd editorial correctly asked, ``What Kept Him (this truck driver) on the Road?'' My own involvement on this issue began on August 25th, when I received a letter from one of Ben's classmates, Lester Feder who asked me to help develop a national database to ensure that drivers with a history of reckless behavior and numerous driving violations cannot obtain a new license. I very much appreciated Mr. Feder's letter and his efforts to add meaning to Ben Cooper's death by working to prevent a similar tragedy from ever occurring again. As I looked into the tragic circumstances in more detail, I was shocked to learn how easily someone can exploit loopholes in the current driver registration system to obtain a new, clean license that can effectively wipe out any past driving violations. This appears to be what may have occurred with the driver of the truck who killed Ben Cooper. The most significant problem with the present system is that there are fifty different systems and databases for personal driver licenses, one for each state, and one incomplete national system for commercial driver licenses. Unfortunately, these separate systems are often incompatible and cannot communicate with each other, requiring records to be updated manually. Moreover, not all states are doing a good job at coordinating and sharing information on bad drivers. Courts and law enforcement officers routinely lack information on a past driver's record prior to sentencing someone with a reckless or DWI (driving while intoxicated) charge. And, in turn, they lack a user-friendly system for transmitting their convictions to all fifty states. Only five states operate a database that can be shared electronically with other states. Forty five states transmit update information to other states by paper. Needless to say coordination among the states on current driver record information is sporadic and inefficient Records are often incomplete and not updated on a timely basis. Anyone motivated to hide their past record of violations can obtain a new license in a different state and obtain a clean driving record. To make matters worse, the commercial driver license information system, which was designed to establish a national database on commercial drivers only covers a small portion of the total driving population. Advancements in information management technologies, however, offers the promise of a simple easy to manage, real-time national database that can retrieve, update and manage a national database on the nation's 200 million licensed drivers. Only with a national database that includes both personal and commercial driver license information can we effectively thwart those who seek to hide their past records. Permitting this new system to use social security numbers, something now permitted with the commercial drivers' license system, will also make it more difficult to alter one's name or identity. The ease and potential cost savings of a national system offers the promise that all states will seek voluntarily to join the national system. Before we reach that stage, however, we must test its feasibility of the new system. The legislation we are introducing today, takes this first step by authorizing $5 million for the U.S. Department of Transportation to work with several states to develop this national database. Once the bugs in the new system are resolved, and I believe they can be, we can offer all states a new cost-efficient and comprehensive system they will all want to join. The legislation we are introducing today is not a panacea. It is, however, a step in the right direction.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I joined the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) over the weekend. Our intent was to go to Kosovo because we were aware of the brutal violence that the Milosevic regime had imposed upon the Kosovo people. They went into villages and wiped out the village. The Interior Minister of Kosovo, who was acting under the orders of Mr. Milosevic, said that if there are even two terrorists opposed to our regime, we consider the entire village opposed and are justified in eliminating it. They killed 87 people, innocent men, women, children. They lined them up. Many of them they only killed after torturing them. These people were not a threat. Virtually all of them were unarmed. They wiped them out because they were afraid that they might at some point pose a threat to their regime. Why would it be a threat? Kosovo is a country of 2.2 million people. About 2 million of them are Albanian Muslims. A little less than 10 percent of the population is Serbian. Many of those Serbs have been sent there by Mr. Milosevic, who is the head of the Serbian government, that now calls itself the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, sent to populate Kosovo. Most of the Serbs there did not want to be there. Some of them had been driven out by Croatians, out of the Krajina region in Croatia, but the reality is that the vast majority of the Kosovo people want to have their own representation. They had a vote in 1991, overwhelmingly elected Mr. Ibrahim Rugova as the President. That presidency was not allowed to take effect, that government was not allowed to take effect. Mr. Milosevic took over control of the country. The way he maintains control over 90 percent of the population is through the most brutal repression, the same kind of brutality we saw in Bosnia. I can tell you one instance when I visited Kosovo earlier, there was a school that was fit for about a thousand students. Half of the school was reserved for a handful of Serbian children, the other half, a thousand Albanian Muslim children were consigned to. The government bricked over the bathrooms. One of the parents who had two daughters there complained about the conditions. That man had his body mutilated, was slit from head to toe and dumped on the doorstep of the family. That is the kind of brutality that enables a very small portion of the population, through a reign of terror, to control 90 percent of the population. That is why we went there, in defense of human rights, of democracy and, in fact, of free enterprise because the Serbian regime out of Belgrade seized control of the private businesses. The majority of the population are not allowed to own their businesses. They seize the assets of the banks, they deprive people of the means of livelihood. You have an 85 percent unemployment rate in Kosovo. What you have is a landmine that is going to explode. President Rugova believes in nonviolence. The six Americans who were imprisoned believe in nonviolence. In fact they were there to preach nonviolent conflict resolution, and yet they were arrested by the police under a phony charge that has never been used before, that they had not registered their exact location with the police. They had moved from one home to another, apparently, and so they had their heads shaved, they were sentenced to 10 days. This is an untenable situation. It cannot continue in the way it is. We are going to have a press conference tomorrow. We will have a rally tomorrow. I hope that free peoples around the world will join in unison against these repressive tactics, restore independence to Kosovo.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce legislation that would authorize full federal funding for the replacement of the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge. As many of my colleagues know, the present bridge is in a serious state of disrepair and is one of the worst traffic bottlenecks in the metropolitan region. It is also the most troubled link on the east coast interstate corridor. Designed to carry 70,000 cars and trucks per day the bridge now carries 175,000 vehicles per day. By the year 2020, Federal Highway Administration estimates a 67 percent increase in vehicle traffic with up to 300,000 vehicles per day crossing the bridge. The future capacity needs alone should make the construction of a new crossing urgent. Coupled with the capacity concerns, however, is the rapidly deteriorating condition of the present bridge. Federal and state highway engineers have determined that the useful life of the present bridge is less than six years. The underpinnings and supports of the bridge are literally crumbling into the Potomac River. The Federal Highway Administration has warned that at some point in the near future, it will need to restrict traffic on the bridge and would likely ban truck traffic for engineering and safety reasons. While I would have favored replacing the present bridge with a tunnel, I recognize that there is not enough money in the federal highway program to support such a costly undertaking. There should, however, be sufficient funds for the Federal Government to meet its responsibility to pay for a replacement bridge. The bridge is owned by the Federal Government and will remain a federal liability until the funds are made available to replace it with a new bridge. At that time, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the District of Columbia and the State of Maryland are prepared to assume ownership and all future maintenance of this bridge through a multi-state authority. I am deeply concerned that without a significant increase in the amount of federal funds pledged to build a new bridge, no significant progress will be made. My proposal authorizes full federal funding for the replacement bridge, the connecting interchanges and approaches. It also seeks to address some of the concerns raised by the affected community that endure the current congestion and traffic and will suffer from a bridge construction project that may last up to nine years. The legislation, therefore also seeks to address their concerns by ensuring that there is: (1) Progress on an additional southern Potomac River crossing, (2) a restriction on tolls, (3) a restriction on the width of the bridge, (4) a limitation on the total number of operational lanes, (5) a requirement that the final two lanes be reserved exclusively for High Occupancy Vehicle lanes and/or mass transit, and (6) an enforcement mechanism to ensure that both the State and Federal Governments honor the mitigation commitments outlined in the Record of Decision. Mr. Speaker, I believe this legislation reflects a compromise on what must be done to get a replacement bridge built.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) for yielding time to me, and I thank as well the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), the ranking member. Mr. Speaker, the United States is performing a noble mission in Bosnia. We are using our military strength to build bridges for peace, for tolerance, for understanding, for respect among peoples. The Balkans has a long history of bloodshed, of ethnic division. We are changing that. We are changing the course of world history. We are doing it in a noble and heroic manner. We are giving every military personnel over there reason to be proud that they represent this country and its principles. We do have a role there. We have a responsibility there, largely because we are looked to as not only the most powerful country economically, politically, militarily, but also the most principled country. We care about other people, about human rights. That's why the peace-loving people of the Balkans have turned to us to save them from unprincipled leaders and from what seemed to be an inevitable history of ethnic conflict. And that is why we must respond as we have. I agree that this is a very important issue to debate. But if we were to look back on some of the arguments that have been raised, that this is not our affair, that we ought not to be involved, many of them sound eerily similar to the arguments that were raised before we got into World War II. We got in because we were bombed at Pearl Harbor. We should have gotten in earlier. We could have and should have saved millions of people from the genocide that occurred there. Now we are not involved in a war. What we are involved in is peacekeeping, but it is preventing genocide. It is trying to unite people against fascism and destructive nationalism. It is doing the right thing. We should be proud of this, not trying to undermine the President, not trying to undermine a foreign policy that makes sense and that saves lives. The courage that we show today will make us the leaders of tomorrow. As we move into the 21st century, our guiding principles of tolerance and mutual respect among all peoples that will guide the world to a brighter century of inclusiveness, of democracy, of free enterprise of human nobility. That is what we stand for in Bosnia. That is why we need to maintain our policy in Bosnia. That is why we must vote to defeat this resolution.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), for yielding; and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We are in agreement on this. This needs to be done. The whole free world needs to react to the brutality that is occurring in Kosovo. Kosovo is a nation of 2 million people. They voted 7 years ago for independence status, along with their sister republics in Yugoslavia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Croatia. They were denied it even though they voted overwhelmingly for this status. Slobodan Milosevic is only supported by 5 percent of the population, but yet he reacted to this vote with unprecedented brutality. Repression, beatings, murders, rapes go on constantly, many of them for the purpose of intimidating the population. There are 60,000 Serb police, paramilitary and military forces that exercise complete control over 2 million Albanian Muslim Kosovars. It is wrong. It is unbelievable that this situation exists at the end of the 20th century. When I was over in Kosovo, I saw the hospitals, the clinics closed, schools closed, physicians dismissed, businesses summarily closed by the Serb police. In fact, when the OSCE monitors were driven out of the country, the incidence of brutality and human rights violations increased 85 percent. This was all monitored by a Council for the Defense of Human Rights and Freedoms that we met with in Pristina. Yet, when we met with them that very week, Serbian police had gone into their office and beaten them. Serbian police stole the photographs, the records that they had. When their attorney attempted to protest to the court, he opened his door that night and was bludgeoned on the head for protesting. In this country, attorneys for the defense go to court. In Kosovo, they go to the hospital. This is wrong. This is intolerable, what is existing. These people only want freedom. They want the opportunity to protect themselves and to exercise their most basic human rights. We saw in one school where the Serbian government, through the police, had taken over half of the school that was supposed to be available for 1,000 children. There were a hundred or so Serbian children using half of it because they were Serbian, and there are almost 1,000 children limited to the other half of the school only because they were Muslim children. And they had bricked over some of the bathrooms. One of the parents protested at this cruelty toward young children. And because he protested, because he had two young daughters in that school, he was mutilated, cut open from head to groin, and dumped on the doorstep of his family. This is the kind of thing that has given rise to the protests we read about today. The OSCE human rights monitors need to be monitoring human rights violations. 90% of the population needs to be enfranchised--legally politically and economically. We will not have peace in the Balkans until their is justice in Kosovo.