Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, this could be a very good bill, but only if the Watt/Rothman amendment does pass. People who have had their land taken clearly should have it resolved in one court. But that court is not the Court of Federal Claims, it is the U.S. District Court. The Watt/Rothman amendment sends it to the U.S. District Court, accomplishes the efficiency, the fairness that people are looking for. If Watt/Rothman passes, I would strongly support this bill. But a lot of people understand that if the only court you can go to is the Court of Federal Claims, this will not be a good bill and will have to vote against it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am strongly in favor of this bill. It is about time we had a bill that actually respected the people of Africa, that was not based upon colluding with their corrupt leaders or exploiting them but finally treats the people of Africa with respect. It will empower the laborers of Africa, particularly the women, to get microenterprise loans, and to have a competitive market in this country to sell their handmade apparel and other handicraft products. This is the least we can do. There is not another continent in the world that this country has exploited more than Africa. The African people were the underpinnings of our slave agricultural economy for our first two centuries of growth. It is about time we turned American policy toward Africa around and showed some recognition of the inherent value of the people of Africa. Africa is the only continent in the world whose poverty is expected to increase over the next decade. Given our history of exploitation and enslavement of African men and women is it not now at least partly our responsibility to turn that around, to see to it that they progress with the rest of the world into the 21st century and enjoy some respect and dignity. We should all be voting ``aye'' on this bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I do not know when it was that Pastor Tom Gulbronson realized what a gift from God and a calling for God that he had. It may have been when he was serving in the United States Air Force. I do know that since serving his country in the Air Force, Pastor Tom has been a pastor for 40 years. In fact, 20 of those years he has been Pastor at the First Assembly of God Church in Alexandria, Virginia. Now, during that period of time he has gotten all kinds of awards, and I could list all of them, and he has spoken on the 700 Club and he has become nationally known, both for his sermons and his books and his leadership. But we know him because he is a dynamic figure in our community. People gather together under his leadership and are inspired by his commitment to God and to the principles that he has dedicated his life to. So it is a particular pleasure to have him address this body this day. I thank the majority leader for arranging it. I thank Pastor Tom for all of the many, many years that he has served our community and our country. Thank you, Tom.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I came to the well because I have heard one speaker after another from the other side suggest that the President came out against tax cuts and that the natural reaction of the Democratic Party is to be opposed to tax cuts. I would remind my colleagues that in fact the President has proposed a number of tax cuts, and that in fact a majority of the Democrats voted for tax cuts as part of the balanced budget agreement. What we are opposed to is eliminating the Tax Code, as the other side has proposed, without anything to replace it. That could wreak havoc on our economy. Imagine when banks and the real estate community have to determine what would be the real cost of homes, for example, if you did not have a mortgage interest deduction, or any number of other assets if you did not have depreciation expenses. We are in favor of tax cuts, but targeted tax cuts; tax cuts for families who are finding it difficult to afford child care expenses, or higher education expenses. Targeted tax cuts is what we need, not irresponsible elimination of the Tax Code.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I have no problems with this bill. I have everything positive to say about it. It is a terrific bill. It is exactly what we need to do. One of the even more compelling parts of it is the fact that our ranking Democrat and our chairman are both in agreement. I know communities all over the country are going to be in agreement with what we are doing here, and most importantly, we are going to be freeing up resources that are currently spent on administrative costs to be spent on improving the lives of homeless people so they can live lives of greater dignity. It is a good bill. I am glad it is going to get unanimous support in this body. I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I will introduce a package of 5 bills to help our economy address the critical shortage in information technology workers. We are fortunate to live and work in a time of economic growth and expansion. Unemployment is low and production is up. But we cannot take these good times for granted. We have to continue to take those measures necessary to sustain our thriving economy. One of the hazards that could derail our economic engine is a growing shortage of skilled workers. Too many firms across the country are facing serious difficulties in hiring workers with needed skills. This shortage, which has been estimated to be as high as 190,000 employees nationwide, is especially restricting the growth and development of our Nation's information technology industry, which is the vanguard of our national economic boom. This shortage of skilled workers is costing our economy over $10 billion a year in lost revenue. But high tech firms are not the only ones suffering from this workforce shortage. When asked about the main barriers to expansion and competitiveness, companies across the country in many different industries point to the difficulty of getting skilled workers. While the current low unemployment rate contributes to this problem, its roots are more fundamental. In the new economy, skill requirements are going up in many industries, even so-called low-tech industries. More than half of the new jobs created require some education beyond high school. The percentage of workers who use computers at work has risen from 25 percent to 46 percent, nearly half, in the last 10 years. States such as Colorado, Maryland, Rhode Island, Washington have all recently released reports highlighting the pressing need of employers for skilled workers. Standard supply and demand economics will not address this shortfall. Most firms, but particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, have limited capacity to engage in significant and sustained workforce development efforts. Managers and owners of most firms are simply too busy running their business to develop training systems. Firms lack information on the type of training they need and where to get it. And, unless their competitors are willing to invest in training as well, such an investment will increase the relative cost of their products above that of their competitors. So there is a natural inclination not to be the first ones to invest in training. And so when confronted with a shortage of skilled workers, most firms try to hire workers from other companies. Competition for skilled employees is so high that companies are offering irresistible packages, including signing bonuses, long-term bonuses, finder's fees, to lure trained employees away from firms who have invested the time and money to train them. Just across the Potomac River, SRA Technologies, a fine firm, a technology firm in my district, offers a $10,000 bounty to employees for every trained worker who signs on as a result of their recommendation. But we are not increasing the supply sufficiently, which is the real long-term solution to this problem. As the United States enters its unprecedented seventh year of growth, attributed in part to the dynamic expansion of the technology industry, Congress must move to remove barriers to technology industry expansion. My legislation addresses the worker shortage and the need to provide additional training through a number of approaches. The first bill creates Regional Skills Alliances. Modeled after the successful Manufacturing Extension Program, this bill would provide Federal support to encourage companies to participate in consortia which would address their industry's specific skill needs. The Federal involvement in this program amounts to one-third of the cost. Every dollar in Federal support will be matched by a dollar in State and local government support and a dollar in direct industry support, so that the competitive pressure not to be the one to take the initiative on training is relieved. The second provision allows the Secretary of Labor to establish Regional Private Industry Councils. PICs play a constructive role in addressing the workforce needs within a State. But these organizations are State organizations and not formed to address problems that may cross State lines. To remedy that situation, my legislation would allow the Secretary of Labor to certify and fund regional PICs that address regional problems. They would be funded directly by the Secretary of Labor to ensure that they do not detract from existing State programs. The third bill would offer employers who train employees for information technology jobs a tax credit for 50 percent of the training costs up to $2,500 per year per employee. The fourth bill would ensure that the Federal Government's investment in training is well spent by allowing these Private Industry Councils to reward bonuses to training providers with a high percentage of placement. This will help establish a more outcome-based system to ensure that training providers emphasize placing their students in jobs. My bill would amend JTPA to allow funds to be used for bonuses for the most successful training providers. It would also allow high technology professionals to more easily immigrate to the United States so that we are not exporting jobs abroad but are paying American workers at home. It is a good and necessary package of legislation. I urge my colleagues' support for it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, what gall for the majority to argue today the merits of local governance when just yesterday they trampled on the local rights of Virginians. Are we only principled when it suits our purposes? I rise today in strong opposition to this extraneous legislation. I happen to support national tests, so it is easy for me to oppose this bill. But I would oppose it even if I opposed national testing. Have we already forgotten how painstaking was the compromise that was mapped out before the Labor-HHS appropriations bill could be signed into law? That compromise is good policy. It will give us an opportunity to get the facts before we debate the merits of national testing. The National Academy of Sciences would conduct a series of studies to inform us before we administer any national tests. I think we all want to do the right thing on the national testing issue, we just disagree about what the right thing is. Getting the facts on national testing before we debate whether or not to have tests is a step in the right direction, but this legislation would deny us that opportunity. While I understand the desire of the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, to keep discretion over authorization of national testing in his own committee, he will have that opportunity when the committee reauthorizes the National Assessment of Education Progress and the National Assessment Governing Board. There is no reason not to wait until we consider legislation to reauthorize those programs and debate this issue at the appropriate forum. I urge my colleagues to oppose this politically motivated attempt to secure jurisdiction where jurisdiction has already been established.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for yielding me this time. I think that a recommittal would have been in order today personally, but we had a full debate yesterday. We understand that the majority of this Congress has chosen to rename this airport, and we respect the majority, obviously. I do want to take a couple minutes here, because I do think that it should be said for the record that renaming this airport does constitute an unfunded Federal mandate on local governments. The cost involves more than just changing a few signs and reprinting stationery. Millions have been invested by the local governments, the private sector, the airlines, the travel hospitality industries to promote this region and identify Washington National as the gateway to the Nation's capital. So the Board of Trade's assessment is probably an understatement, that it would be confusing and expensive. The total amount might be in millions of dollars for new ad campaigns to associate the airport's new name with the location it serves. We felt it was ironic that part of President Reagan's legacy was the successful transfer to local control of Washington National Airport. All of the locality organizations and the local governments oppose this. But I think at this stage in the process, Mr. Speaker, that we want to also be clear that it is entirely appropriate to give some positive recognition to Ronald Reagan on his birthday. We felt it was not the appropriate recognition; but, given the fact that the majority of the Congress has spoken, I do not think that it would be appropriate to force people to go through what has got to be an embarrassing situation for the Reagan family and for everyone who wants to find an appropriate way to memorialize President Reagan. He will be memorialized soon with the new Federal trade building, the aircraft carrier and so on. But if this is the wishes of the majority, then we will not ask for a recommittal. We will not ask for a rollcall vote. We will just ask that in the future, that the interests of the minority, and particularly of local governments, gain greater respect from the majority so that in the future we can be more consistent with what we thought was President Reagan's underlying philosophy that local governments ought to have greater say in the things that affect their daily lives. So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down. I will not fight this battle again, at least this year. Maybe people will recognize that what goes around can come around. But at this point, I think the majority of this body would like to put this issue to rest and go home and try to deal with more constructive issues in the future.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, I have 2 amendments left that were filed last night. One of them I will not submit. That amendment would have required that the Members of Congress and the Senate and the judiciary would have to pay for their own parking at Washington National Airport and the receipts would then be used to offset the costs of changing this name. I will not do that. However, I would like for the Members to consider how my constituents feel when they see Members of Congress getting parking for which they have to pay, for which Members of Congress do not have to pay, getting it closer to the airport than they are able to park. They resent that. However, I do not think that this is the way to address that, and I am perfectly willing to let that go. I do think that Members of this body should give those constituents who live in the area where this airport is located, in Arlington County, Virginia, the opportunity to be heard on this issue that does affect them directly, and in fact, does cost the small businesses that work at Washington National Airport a substantial amount of money. So what this amendment would do is to simply allow for a referendum; it would hold in abeyance our decision with regard to the renaming until there is a referendum conducted in Arlington County, Virginia. It would be conducted in November so there would be no additional expense, and we would hear from the local residents. This is consistent with hearing from local people as to how they feel about Federal Government directives. That is all this would do. There would be a public referendum, as there are already a number of referendums in many states, California particularly, and certainly a procedure that the other party has embraced in any number of other cases. That would give us a real sense of how the people most directly affected by this decision feel about it. Do not take my word for it. Take the word of the majority. I am certainly willing to accept the democratic process. Let us see what the Democratic majority feel about it. Certainly both parties are well represented in this community. Both parties would have every opportunity to make the case. After full consideration, because there was not a public hearing on this issue, after full consideration, they could then vote through the democratic process, but at least let the majority of citizens render a determination whether this is the right thing to do, whether this is the way that they choose to honor Ronald Reagan. I think this is an appropriate amendment. It is the kind of thing that we should do in any number of cases. Before we decide to impose our will from on top, let us listen to the local community. Let us see what the majority want to do, and let us take that into consideration before we make decisions that affect their daily lives. So, Mr. Chairman, I would offer this amendment, and I would hope it would be accepted by the party in the majority. I would hope that maybe this could even set a precedent for this type of thing where it clearly is contentious, but where I am purporting to represent the majority. Perhaps I do not, and if I do not, then the majority's will is to be respected by this body. It is certainly consistent with President Reagan's philosophy of devolving power down to local government. That is where the rubber should hit the road, that is where the people are most directly affected, and that is where they should have the most influence over the conduct of our decision-making. So I offer the amendment, and I hope it would be made in order. I hope that there will not be an objection to this common sense amendment that respects local government, respects local communities, respects the democratic process. Point of Order

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), Ranking Member of the Committee on Rules, for making the important points that need to be made so eloquently, as well as the Ranking Member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. (Mr. Oberstar.) I want to say to the chairman of the Committee on Rules that my opposition to this bill in no way implies a lack of sympathy for the health condition of our former president. It is not a criticism of his policies. In fact, it is just the opposite. My opposition is completely consistent with his philosophy. Our hearts do go out to the Reagan family. We want a fitting memorial for President Reagan. But I strongly oppose this bill. I bitterly oppose it because it is an arrogant abuse of power, and it stands in direct contradiction to everything that President Reagan stood for. Arlington County, where the airport is located, is opposed to this. The City of Alexandria, which is directly contiguous to the airport, voted unanimously in opposition to this. The Greater Washington Board of Trade, which represents the business community in the Washington Metropolitan Area, is opposed to this. It is going to cost them millions of dollars to change all their advertising material. Why can we not respect the wishes of local government and the small businesses in the area. It needs to be emphasized that, in 1986, it was President Reagan who signed the legislation that turned over the authority of this airport to a regional authority that would then be responsible for making these decisions. Why should we not now defer to them? Why would we impose our will upon the very organization that President Reagan created? It is wrong that we do this today. It is wrong to strip George Washington's name from our national airport. Many of my colleagues may not be aware of the fact that Franklin Roosevelt, when this airport was commissioned, told the architects he wanted the main terminal to look like Mount Vernon. It was clear that this was to memorialize George Washington. His adopted son owned the land. There is no precedent for this, stripping a former president's name and imposing another president. The only explanation can be a partisan political one. And this should not be partisan. In fact, in many ways it dishonors President Reagan's legacy to be subjecting he and his family to this kind of contentious debate, to be doing something that is so contrary to what he believed in. This should not be done. And one of the people that has explained why it should not be done is the first Republican governor of Virginia, Governor Linwood Holton, who was the first chair of this airport authority. Governor Holton has written a letter. We have that letter. He urges us in the strongest terms, do not do this. It is completely contrary to what President Reagan stood for. We will have a number of amendments that will seek to make a bad bill a little bit more palatable. One would defer this renaming decision to the Washington Airport Authority. Another would say that until we have enough money to reimburse the businesses and the public bodies that are going to incur substantial expenses because of this, we should not do it. President Reagan is being honored in appropriate ways. We have an $800 million Federal Trade Center. Outside of the Pentagon, this is the largest Federal building in the world. It is going to be named after President Reagan in just a few weeks. We are going to name the next Nimitz class aircraft carrier after President Reagan. We have got a courthouse in California named after President Reagan. There are going to be a lot of things named after President Reagan. I am not sure that this idea that was in Time Magazine that we ought to carve his face in Mount Rushmore is not going to be an even more contentious issue, but there are sure going to be lots of opportunities to honor President Reagan, appropriate non-partisan opportunities. This is not an appropriate opportunity.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, several things need to be clarified. This airport clearly was named in honor of George Washington, and anyone suggesting that it is only referring to Washington, D.C., should ask themselves who they think Washington, D.C. was named after; Bugs Bunny? It is obvious that George Washington is honored here. In fact, the land was owned by George Washington's adopted son. There is a lot of history. We are going to share that with Members. The main thing we need to emphasize here is this is directly contrary to Ronald Reagan's legacy. Ronald Reagan signed the legislation giving local control. Respect that local control.

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the first thing that needs to be made clear is that, just as Washington, D.C., is named after George Washington, Washington National Airport is named after George Washington. I know that Ronald Reagan would not want us doing this. He would know that the main terminal at Washington National Airport is designed after Mount Vernon. He would know that. He would know that Washington National Airport is located on the very land that George Washington's adopted son owned. He would know the history behind this. He would also know that it is unprecedented to rename a facility in a district of a Member that opposes it. He would know why that Member opposes it. Because he would respect the fact that the County of Arlington, the City of Alexandria both have informed the Congress that they are opposed to it. He would respect the fact that the Washington business community has written to us their opposition to doing this. He would know that the local community does not want this name change because it respects George Washington. And our community, the community I represent, does not want to dishonor Ronald Reagan by doing this, and it certainly does not want to dishonor George Washington. We know there are better ways, more appropriate ways, to honor Ronald Reagan. This is not an appropriate way to do it. There are many other ways. But the irony of this, that it was Ronald Reagan that signed the very legislation in 1986 to seed over local control, is completely consistent with his philosophy of devolving power to local and State governments. Ronald Reagan signed that legislation. That legislation epitomizes what he was all about. And what an irony, what a dishonor to then turn around and act so contrary to that legislation. He would also recognize that the first Republican State-wide official in the Commonwealth of Virginia has written this body stating his opposition to this legislation. Governor Linwood Holton, who certainly respects Ronald Reagan but fully understands why this should not be done and not just for the financial cost. He understands the history of Virginia. He understands the background of Washington National Airport and of the local control. He understands what Ronald Reagan stood for. I wish more Members of this body did understand that and respected it. Let us find a way to honor Ronald Reagan's memory that is consistent with Ronald Reagan's philosophy, that is consistent with the legislation establishing Washington National Airport, and is certainly consistent with the history behind its name. Washington National Airport is a facility we can all be proud of. We will not be as proud of a facility that is renamed after another president against the wishes of the local community. It should not be done. It is an arrogant abuse of power.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the Speaker of this body is in receipt of a letter from the chairman of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority that indicates that the action that we are about to take is likely illegal. I would urge the Speaker to release that letter to the body before we do act in an illegal manner. The letter addresses the legal authority that the gentlewoman representing the District of Columbia just referred to. There is substantial cause to uphold the control that was ceded in 1986 to the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority and compelling reason not to take away some part of that controlling authority. It does send the signal that not only jeopardizes its bonding authority and the ability to implement its other subsequent decisions, but it would have precedent in other situations where this Congress has ceded authority. Speaking of Speaker Gingrich, I would like to quote Speaker Gingrich from the Congressional Record of 1986, when the authority was being granted to this Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority. The Speaker said, ``Tonight we have the chance to get the Federal Government out of the business it has no business being in. The very scale and complexity of this resolution should remind all of us that managing legitimately Federal activities is a big enough job. It is time to allow a regional authority to do a regional job, that of managing airports.'' ``The fact is very simple.'' He goes on to say, ``The Federal Government ought not be involved in dictating what regional airports ought to be doing.'' He says, ``Do we allow the regional authority to both run the airport, getting it away from our attention and not cluttering us, or do we allow the regional authority to borrow the money, thus not having ourselves burdened?'' I am not going to take up the body's time, but it is clear from the Speaker's quotes as well as the language in the Senate debate, and Senator Dole was most explicit, that complete authority was given to the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority. We did not retain authority to do what is being suggested be done today. This has substantial adverse implications. That is why the business community is opposed to it. The business community's opposition has no political partisan basis. One rental car company told me that if the Congress does this, it is going to cost him $200,000. It means that they have to change all their promotional materials. It means that the airport location is not going to be readily identifiable. Who knows where Ronald Reagan Airport is? It is going to take a time for the public to figure it out. We made the arguments against doing this on the basis of history. I think those are compelling arguments. The airport stands on the very road that leads to George Washington's home, Mount Vernon. The land was owned by George Washington's adopted son. We have a long historical relationship, and we can show that. Apparently that does not matter. But I think it should matter to the Members when the chairman of the committee cites precedent. It is unprecedented to rename a facility or to name a facility in the jurisdiction of a Member of this Congress when that Member opposes that naming. This Member opposes the action that this body is considering. It is unprecedented to do this over the wishes of the Member, whether they be Republican or Democrat. In the past Democratic Congresses have always respected that custom. I have good reason to be opposed to this because my constituency is opposed to this. The local governments have opposed this. We have made those letters available. They have good reason to be opposed to this. Respect the wishes of those local governments. Respect the constituencies that I am bound to represent. Our opposition is not partisan. In fact, it is wholly consistent with President Reagan's philosophy of devolving power to local government. If we do this, it will be an arrogant abuse of power. It will be partisan. It will be wrong. We should not do this. There are plenty of ways to recognize Ronald Reagan appropriately. We are going to be doing that very soon when we dedicate the International Trade Center, an $800 million Federal building, in his honor. We are going to dedicate the next Nimitz class aircraft carrier in Ronald Reagan's honor. Those things are appropriate. This is inappropriate.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the chairman of the full committee recognizes that the CBO estimate of cost only refers to the direct costs incurred by the airports authority. It does not include the very substantial cost that the small businesses in the private sector would incur. I got a letter and subsequent phone calls from several companies. But one such company, an airport rental firm, estimated that it would cost them $200,000 to make this name change. All of their National promotional materials have to be changed. And that is not one of the largest rental car companies. There are any number of businesses, hundreds of businesses, that refer to their location that serve Washington National Airport. All of that has to be changed. This, in fact, is an unfunded Federal mandate, more so on private businesses than on the public entity, the airports authority. But it is on both. It is contrary to the legislation that we passed that we would not continue to do these unfunded Federal mandates. But here we are again. When it suits our purposes, what difference does it make what we do to these local businesses? We want our will imposed. It is more important to us. They do not live in the area. They do not represent the area. So what is it to them? Their people, if they care anything, they know about Ronald Reagan. They do not know anything about Arlington or Alexandria or the Greater Washington Board of Trade's concerns. But that is what Ronald Reagan told us. That was part of his philosophy: Respect the wishes of local government; respect the wishes of small businesses. And they are going to incur very substantial costs. I had an amendment that said, well, if we are going to do this, maybe we ought to start paying for parking at the airport and put those funds in a fund that would reimburse the small businesses for the costs that they are going to incur because we chose to impose our will on them. Talk about rubbing salt into wounds. They thought they got the authority. They have to pay the expense. They issue the bonds. It is not Federal money. We get free parking, and then we decide how the airport should be named, despite the wishes of the local government. Arlington has voted against it, Alexandria, the Greater Washington Board of Trade, any number of businesses that expect me to represent them and that would expect that this body would have some respect for them. This is a good amendment. It should pass. It is completely consistent with what this Congress is supposed to be all about. Certainly, the Republican side of the aisle ought to have some respect for small businesses, even if those small businesses do not happen to be in their own congressional district. It might even be nice if they showed a little respect for the Member who represents that district, because that Member would respect the wishes of them if it was going to be done in their district. But, no, this has too many national political implications, so the heck with it. This came about because of a national solicitation for funds by a man by the name of Grover Norquist. He set part of this Reagan legacy project and then everybody goes along with it. It is not right. It is not right to trample on the wishes of local government. It is not right to impose these fees on small businesses. My colleagues do not know whether they can afford that cost. One of these rental car companies said, ``This could drive me out of business if I have to change all my promotional materials. I just updated them all.'' But what do we care? It is nothing to us. We have the power of the purse. We have the power. We can exercise it at will. Well, this is an arrogant abuse of power. It should not be done. It is wrong, and it creates a precedent that is going to come back to haunt us. I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I object unless the gentleman is willing to yield so I can respond.

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would clarify the name of Washington National Airport since, apparently, there is a great deal of misunderstanding. It needs to be recognized, for example, that Franklin Roosevelt, in the commissioning of Washington National Airport, told the architects that the main terminal was to be designed to look like Mt. Vernon, the home of George Washington. We can see it from perspective, which is difficult because most of us see it when we are right up on top of it and getting out of an automobile. If we look at it from the proper perspective, though, we can see that that is what the architects did. I think it also is important to recognize that this land on which Washington National Airport is located was owned by John Park Custis, who was George Washington's adopted son, the only surviving son of Martha Custis Washington. He owned the property, lived there until his death at the battle of Yorktown. He was named to George Washington, who, after marrying Martha, treated John P. Custis as his own son. Dr. David Stewart, who was then President Washington's physician, married J.P. Custis' widow and moved into the Abingdon estate, which is where Washington National Airport is located. Dr. Stewart was one of the three commissioners supervising the development of the Nation's new capital and personally named the city across the river the city of Washington and the territory of Columbia. It was clear that it was being named after George Washington, that Washington National Airport is named after George Washington. J.P. Custis' son, George Washington Park Custis, who lived at both Abingdon and Mount Vernon, who was adopted by George Washington following the death of J.P. Custis, built Arlington House, better known as the Custis-Lee Mansion, which later became Arlington Cemetery. He was Robert E. Lee's father-in-law. All of this occurred on this land. That is why my constituents care so much about retaining the identification of Washington National Airport with George Washington. There is a lot of history here. Washington National Airport is built on the very foundation of Abingdon Plantation. This is where these people lived. In the promotional material for Washington National Airport, as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has referred to, time and again they talk about George Washington treading on this land. His family owned this land. This was very important to him. That is why it is so important to us. He lived on the same road, at the very end of it, at Mount Vernon. What this amendment would do is to make it clear that this airport is named after George Washington, as George Washington National Airport. That is the way it should continue to be named. Mr. Chairman, I can understand people's respect for Ronald Reagan, but, I have to say, this dishonors Ronald Reagan's legacy. This is not right, and I know that neither President Reagan nor Mr. Reagan's family would want his name to be involved in such a contentious issue. My constituents, who want to retain George Washington's name, do not want to be involved in any way in dishonoring Mr. Reagan's legacy. They do not want this to be such a contentious issue. But they jealously guard the name that this airport now has. Not only does it honor George Washington, it also identifies where the airport is. It is helpful to the people who use the airport. It is going to be very confusing if it is renamed. People are not going to know where Ronald Reagan Airport is, because it could be anyplace in the country. Why would anyone figure it is going to be in Arlington, Virginia? I think this is the kind of amendment that we should do, to make it clear that we will not get into this kind of partisan, contentious debate, ever again. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for my amendment. Point of Order

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I do. Mr. Chairman, in the other body they have named this airport Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. The point that I want to make is that no one knows, including our very respected, knowledgeable parliamentarians, whether the people who named the airport Washington National Airport were identifying with the geographical location or with the personal identification. That is my point. The constituents who use it, in whose district it is located, feel that it is named after George Washington, rather than the geographical location. But who is to say? I do not know for sure. I am sharing my point of view, and this goes directly to the point of order. I feel that it is named after George Washington, and so I do not see that it would be subject to a point of order simply to clarify that. Certainly you do not need to change any signs, when people already assume Washington National Airport means George Washington National Airport. So I do not agree it should be subject to a point of order. I think it is entirely in order. I think this clarification is appropriate for this body to pass.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay this any longer out of respect for my colleagues. I think the point has been made. The point has been made on any number of these amendments. I would just hope that we would show respect, both for Ronald Reagan's legacy to respect the wishes of local governments and local communities, whether we agree with them or not, and to respect the democratic process of governance. But I will not say any more than that. I know Members want to get on and vote and dispatch this bill. I obviously object to what it does, both to Ronald Reagan's legacy, what it does to a local community and the way that it tramples upon the democratic process. I think it is an arrogant abuse of power.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I guess I should wait for the Chairman to determine whether he wants to continue to raise a point of order against it, or reserve a point of order.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I assume that this is not taken off my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that a point of order was raised before the chairman knew which amendment it was, but I assure the gentleman it was printed.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, it is at the desk, and it has been printed. It was printed last night. It is Amendment No. 6, requiring a referendum.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, Amendment No. 6.