Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for the arguments that have been made today; and I would say, if it matters to any of my colleagues, that I am the Member who represents the area where Washington National Airport is located. Mr. Speaker, if we were to agree to this recommittal, I daresay it would probably be unanimous. What a fitting tribute for President Reagan to have a unanimous vote of this body. It would be fully accepted by all the people and the businesses that are located in Northern Virginia. This is a beautiful terminal, millions of dollars. It is state-of-the-art. It has no name now, so there is no need to strip George Washington's name from it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow this House will take up a bill to strip George Washington's name from Washington National Airport and to rename it the Ronald Reagan National Airport. I oppose this legislation. My opposition and the opposition of other Members to this bill has nothing to do with personal feelings about President Reagan and his family. In fact, we wish them the best. The debate on this bill should not be about President Reagan or his policies. I want to repeat this. This debate is not about President Reagan or how best to honor his legacy, this debate is about the majority's efforts to push through a bill that will have serious consequences with little debate and no serious consideration. In the 7 years I have been a Member of Congress I have never seen greater arrogance than has been exhibited by the majority party in their efforts to enact this legislation. This is an arrogant abuse of power. Washington National Airport is in my district. I have never been consulted about this legislation. I was never asked to appear at a hearing, because there was no hearing. And no one from the other side has even bothered to ask my constituents what they thought about it. If they had, they would find that we do not want this name changed. Every Member of this House should think how they would feel if the Congress were to vote tomorrow to rename the airport in their district without even consulting them. This bill was drafted without consulting Senators Warner and Roth, Virginia's representatives in the other body. This bill was drafted without consulting the Washington Metropolitan Airport Authority, the body that Ronald Reagan created to govern the Washington National Airport. It was drafted without consulting the Federal Aviation Administration that has to change all the tickets and the rerouting and their whole computer network. The airlines operating out of National were not consulted or the businesses located around the airport in my district. Each of these entities will be significantly and adversely impacted by this bill and each deserves a voice in this decision. Rather than honor Ronald Reagan and his family and his philosophy of devolving Federal power to State and local governments, this Congress is completely ignoring the expressed wishes of local government when it acts in such an imperious, dictatorial manner. Both Arlington County and the City of Alexandria have gone on record as firmly opposing this renaming bill. The Greater Washington Board of Trade, which is the equivalent of our regional Chamber of Commerce, opposes this legislation. These local organizations reflect strong public sentiment against H.R. 2526. So rather than respect the conservative principles of Ronald Reagan, this Congress is diminishing the history of the airport and the President for which it was named to glorify another President. Our local airport was named Washington National Airport for a very good reason. George Washington lived less than 10 miles away from it, on the very same route. He lived at the end of the street where Washington National Airport is located, Mount Vernon. When it was built, President Roosevelt and airport architects wanted the original terminal to bear a resemblance to Mount Vernon, which it does. Virginia is a State which is proud to have produced so many Presidents and Founding Fathers for this Nation. We do not want to have the name of our first President taken off the busiest airport in our State. Rather than honor President Reagan's belief in limited and preferably local government, this Congress is about to enact a bill that will saddle the Washington Metropolitan Airport Authority and hundreds of local businesses in and around Washington National Airport with great and unnecessary expenses. The most ironic, and some would say saddest, part of this entire debate is that we are trying to overturn one of President Reagan's accomplishments. It was, after all, President Ronald Reagan who in 1986 signed legislation that ceded Federal control over Washington National and Dulles Airports to the State and regional authorities. That 1986 law granted to the Washington Metropolitan Airport Authority control over these airports. They were not even consulted. This is wrong. It is an outrageous abuse of power. It should not be done. Do not do it. By signing that legislation, President Reagan assured that the federal government would get out of the business of running regional airports. He was correct in doing so. He was acting in a manner that was consistent with this core philosophy, which was to devolve power to the state and local governments. Now, twelve years later, my Republican colleagues want to ignore completely the spirit and purpose of that law and force this name change on unwilling local authorities. Lest anyone think that this is just a partisan concern, or that we are acting in a petty manner, I ask them to consider not my comments but the comments of former Virginia Governor Linwood Holton, who was also a former chairman of the Washington Airports Authority. In a letter to me last week, the Governor stated his strong opposition to H.R. 2526. He expressed the concern that this bill defeats the purpose of the 1986 airports law and the underlying lease for the airports between the federal government and the airports authority. That lease grants to the authority--and not to this Congress--the control over all operational issues relating to the airport. And that includes its name! Governor Holton goes on to articulate the concerns that many of us have about the cost of this name change and its impact on the traveling public. These are not the concerns of some partisan Democrat, but of the first Republican elected to statewide office in modern Virginia history. Mr. Speaker, President Reagan has been and will continue to be honored by the American people. His name will be on the Navy's next Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. The new international trade center downtown will be dedicated in April as the Ronald Reagan Building. And there is a courthouse in California named after President Reagan. These honors are appropriate and enjoy bipartisan support. Let's not subject the President and his family to a divisive debate over renaming Washington National Airport. H.R. 2526 is a bill that is opposed by our local governments in Virginia. It is opposed by the business community. It runs counter to the spirit and purpose of existing law. It diminishes Virginia history and the legacy of George Washington. And it establishes a bad precendent for this House. I urge the Republican leadership to withdraw this ill-advised and hastily drawn measure. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following: McLean, VA, January 29, 1998. Dear Jim: I am writing to you in regards to the pending legislation to change the name of the Washington National Airport to ``Ronald Reagan National Airport.'' I had the honor of working closely with the Congress and Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole in advancing the Metropolitan Washington Airports Act of 1986 to transfer Washington National Airport out of the Federal Government to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. This legislation of course was signed into law by President Reagan. The Airports Authority was created by the Commonwealth of Virginia and the District of Columbia. The Federal Government leased Washington National Airport and Washington Dulles International Airport to the Authority for fifty years beginning on June 7, 1987. I was privileged to serve as Chairman of the Authority at that time and I signed that lease on behalf of the Authority. The purpose of the transfer, as recited in the lease itself, was to achieve ``local control, management, operation and development'' of the airports. I am very concerned that after ten years of this lease arrangement, the Congress now proposed to take unilateral action to change the name of the airport. This is not at all consistent with either the literal terms or the purpose of that lease agreement. Further, the change to the name as proposed, while honoring a president for whom I have the greatest respect, would be detrimental to the airport and its users and affect the traveling public in ways certainly not intended by the drafters of this legislation. The lease grants the Authority complete control, power, and dominion over the airports. The intent of Congress, Virginia and the District of Columbia in this arrangement is clear. Even though the Federal Government continues to own the underlying land, the airport is to be treated as any other airport, not as a federal facility. In the past, there have been changes made to the lease at the request of Congress and the changes have been brought about by a mutually agreed upon amendment to the lease to secure the consent of the Airports Authority. The proposed name change legislation does not acknowledge the need to obtain the consent of the Authority and this is inconsistent with the intended relationship between the Federal Government and the Authority. As for the consequences, the removal of ``Washington'' from the airport name removed the location and market identifier that is obviously very important to travelers and shippers at points distant from the Washington area. It is worth noting that well over half of those who travel through National are not residents of the Washington region. The word ``Washington'' provides immediate market and location information. Without it, there will be confusion that does not exist today about where the airport is and what market it serves. The cost of such loss of identity and confusion may not be readily quantified, but I believe that it would be substantial. There also are other costs such as the costs to local businesses who have associated their identifies with Washington National Airport. In conclusion, the legislation which transferred Washington National Airport to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority granted to the Authority the control and oversight of the airport. Unilateral action by the Congress to take the drastic action of changing the name of the airport is inconsistent with both the spirit and the intent of the transfer. Very truly yours, Linwood Holton.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of James B. Hunter, a longtime member of the Arlington, Virginia, County Board, who passed away on January 5. Jim Hunter embodied what many of us strive our entire lives to achieve--a compassionate and effective blend of civic activism and public service that forms a lasting legacy. Jim served on the Arlington County Board from 1990 until he retired, for health reasons, last September. While on the Board, Jim Hunter spoke up loudly and effectively for the rights of those whose voices are often muted. But his record of public service encompasses much more than those seven years as an elected official. This willingness to speak up for the dispossessed began long before Jim ever held elected office. Through years of community work, he had built his reputation as a wise and dedicated public servant for years before he gave Arlington voters the opportunity to endorse his leadership through election. Throughout his life, Jim gave of his time to raise money for groups like the United Way, and served on the boards of the Arlington County chapter of the American Red Cross and the Veterans Memorial YMCA. He was a former president of the Committee of 100, a group of concerned Arlingtonians committed to finding solutions to community challenges. He founded the Arlington Housing Corporation, an organization that works for low- and moderate-income housing and helps keep county teenagers out of trouble. He served on numerous county commissions dealing with issues as wide-ranging as law enforcement, fiscal affairs, and planning. As a member of the County Board, he served on committees of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, including a stint as chair of COG's transportation planning board and service on boards dealing with airport noise abatement, human services, public safety, and the environment. But aside from his generous contributions to public service, Jim demonstrated his dedication to others in his private life as well. After he and his wife, Patricia, had three children of their own, they adopted a teenage girl who has fled her native Laos with an aunt and an uncle and who was living in a two-bedroom apartment with 10 other people. This personal response to suffering was indicative of Jim Hunter's life of purposeful compassion. A Marine Corps veteran, a loving husband, father and grandfather, a respected, indeed beloved, public servant, Jim Hunter served as a role model for an entire generation of civic activists who learned from him profound and lasting lessons about duty, responsibility, and integrity. His family, his friends, and his community will miss him, but we will also remember his commitment to the less fortunate, and in remembering, we will renew our own.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In the interest of time we are not going to have other speakers, but I would like to extend our appreciation to some people like the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] and the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek]. They could have delayed their colleagues' time considerably tonight. They chose not to, but it is an issue that they have very legitimate and deep feelings about. I think the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] should be recognized for his conscientious effort on this bill. We disagreed on a number of provisions, but he applied himself and spent a lot of time on this; certainly the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the full committee, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the full committee. The staff deserves some recognition: Migo Miconi, he is a walking encyclopedia of the District of Columbia; Mike Fischetti, Mary Porter, Tom Forhan, Cheryl Smith. I would like to give some recognition to Mike Brown, my personal staff person, who spent hours, days, months really working on this bill and he did a tremendous job on it. I should have recognized him last time when it came to the floor. Cedric Hendricks has done such great work on the authorizing committee for the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton]. I would also like to give some recognition to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], the chairman of the authorizing committee. He has done a real fine job in getting this bill through, and in a way that the President can sign it and give the money to the District that it sorely needs. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of the motion offered by the gentleman from Louisiana to concur in the Senate amendment to the D.C. appropriations bill, with an amendment. Mr. Speaker, the Senate amendment is essentially what we call the Moran substitute. I offered it on the House floor when the D.C. bill came up. It does include a new title which provides relief for Nicaraguan and Central American refugees. I totally agree with the comments of the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings], the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra]. It is wrong to exclude Haitian refugees in this; there is no question about it. I think that that is very unfortunate. However, this bill needs to be passed. The reality is, D.C. needs its money. We have a fiscal crisis. This is a substantial improvement over the House-passed bill. We will hear from the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] shortly. It has bipartisan support. It supports the Federal revitalization package that this Congress passed last year. With the adoption of the Senate amendment, we have a bill that the President will sign. The Senate amendment has several key features that are similar to the original House bill. It provides the same $828 million. The funds are distributed a little differently but they are just the way that the Control Board and the D.C. government feel they ought to be distributed. Also, like the House bill, the Senate amendment will ensure that the District continues to make progress to reduce its accumulated deficit. $200 million goes into deficit reduction. This is the bill that was the consensus budget submitted by the D.C. Council, the mayor and the D.C. Financial Control Board. Most important, these provisions that the Senate amendment has do not contain all the micromanagement and the legislative riders that were in the House bill that caused such problems and delayed consideration of the bill. It drops the authorizing language and appropriations for D.C. vouchers. That would have ensured a presidential veto. It drops the part that forced the closure of the D.C. law school. It keeps Pennsylvania Avenue closed regardless of what Members think about that. That would have been a very controversial issue with the administration. We are 43 days into the fiscal year. We have got to act immediately. The District of Columbia government is 43 days behind in implementing the management and financial reforms that we all know are sorely needed. The Control Board is eager to begin its work. It cannot do so until we get this bill completed. Mr. Speaker, the Senate amendment and the amendments that are offered by the chairman of this committee deserve our strong support. The chairman's amendment makes several technical adjustments. It adds the charter school provisions that were contained in the original House- passed bill, with the exception, there is an exception, it takes out the provision that would have sold D.C. school facilities for a dollar a year. That has to be taken out. It is a matter of about $20 million the D.C. school system needs. The D.C. school system agreed with Parents United in the court suit that that money would be spent on rehabilitating existing school facilities. That was the right amendment, the Senate amendment, with the exception of title II certainly, but the Senate amendment deserves our strong support. The D.C. government deserves better than it has gotten so far in this fiscal year. I do urge all my colleagues to support the motion offered by the gentleman from Louisiana and urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to the gentleman from California who just spoke, when he was praising General Becton, he used the term, ``I would like to command General Becton.'' I think he may want to correct the Record. I suspect he meant ``commend General Becton.'' I might like to command him, but I note that he may want to catch that in the Record. Either way, I agree with the gentleman that General Becton is doing a fine job in a very difficult situation with the D.C. school system, and this bill helps that situation. It will be a long time before we correct all of D.C.'s problems, but certainly this is a step forward. That is why I rise in support of this rule. I do not disagree with the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] about the fact that Haitian refugees should get fair, comparable treatment to Central American and Cuban refugees. She argues about something that is not in the rule that she wants in the rule. I do not disagree with the issue, but I do think that this rule should be supported. We need to get on with the business of providing the necessary funds for the District of Columbia. They are facing a financial crisis. So let us get this rule passed. I find nothing objectionable in it as it pertains to the District of Columbia, and I will address the substance of the bill when the bill is brought up. I do urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler], as well as the distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], who just spoke, have adequately described what this bill will do. So out of consideration for the pressing time demands of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], I will keep my remarks as brief as possible. I will only say that this is a common-sense bill that will save time and money. It will improve customer service and security for those who use the Washington Metropolitan Transit system. I commend the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] for getting it on the consent calendar. I urge all of my colleagues to pass it unanimously.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to John Sturdivant, who passed away on Tuesday. John's service with the Federal Government began in 1961 as an electronics technician with the Army Interagency Communications Agency. John's concern for the well- being of his fellow Federal employees was evident from the very beginning of his Government service. He soon became active in his local AFGE chapter. His passion soon earned him the respect of his peers, who elected him President of his local union in 1968. John's continued success soon led him to AFGE's national office where he served in numerous positions culminating with his election as AFGE President in 1988. As the principal spokesman for Federal employees, John led the charge for countless reform proposals. In particular, John succeeded in reforming the Hatch Act, so that Federal employees could participate in the political process in their free time. He also pushed for locality pay, to bring Federal salaries more in line with the cost of living. One of John's greatest fights came in late 1995, when partisan politics caused two Government shutdowns. Shutting down the Government hurt all Americans, but Federal employees suffered first by being locked-out of their jobs. Federal employees should never be used as pawns in a political chess game. Without John's perseverance, Federal employees surely would have suffered even greater injustices. Mr. Speaker, John should be remembered for all of his accomplishments, but I will remember him mostly as a friend. He was a compassionate man with a profound respect for equity and justice. Though pragmatic, he never lost sight of the very ideals that first led him to serve in his local union. John will be sorely missed.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bipartisan bill but with disappointment in the majorities' use of this important legislation to advance their political agenda. Most of us agree that we need to present some form of alternative for children who do not have access to quality public schools. Charter schools present a viable alternative to traditional public education for all children in the United States. Offering a choice to 2,000 students for whom there is insufficient space in the schools they could afford with vouchers is not a solution. On Wednesday, the District of Columbia chartering authority interviewed applicants interested in opening 1 of the 20 new charter schools that we authorized last Congress. I am optimistic about these new schools. There are currently 3 charter schools operating in the District. This is fewer than the number of charter applicants approved by the Charter School Board. The other approved charter schools could not open because they lacked sufficient startup funds. This is not the result of District of Columbia financial mismanagement. As my colleagues know from their own States and districts, it has been the case for approved charters nationally. Some 59 percent of charter school operators reported a lack of these funds. With the passage of enabling legislation in more States every legislative session, startup funding needs will only increase. In fiscal year 1997, State requests for charter school funding exceeded appropriations by $24 million. We are addressing this problem in this charter schools amendments bill. We need the increased authorization to meet the $100 million appropriation, and we need the increase in the length of the Federal grant from 3 to 5 years to meet this need. The need will not be met if we attach a voucher provision to this bill. The HELP Scholarship Act was only introduced into the House 1 week ago. It has not been subjected to committee scrutiny, and no hearings have been held on this bill, cutting out the hearing process and any input from the people on whom it would have the greatest impact. The attachment of this voucher language in conference would clearly compromise the bipartisan nature of the charter school bill. It should be considered on its own merit after appropriate committee scrutiny and approval. Unlike the HELP Scholarship bill, the Charter School Amendments Act was considered by its committee of jurisdiction, the Education and the Workforce Committee. After committee members had an opportunity to amend the bill, it passed out of committee with a strong, bipartisan majority. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule to allow attachment of the HELP Scholarship bill in conference. It threatens final passage of this important legislation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to address the issue that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] brought up with regard to Bosnia. The reason that we are in Bosnia, there are two reasons. One is to save lives, and the second is American leadership. Mr. Speaker, the fact that we did not get involved in Bosnia when we could, and I think we should have, trying to defer to Europe, ultimately resulted in the loss of a quarter of a million lives. We are in Bosnia to save lives. I think when we have the capability to do that, I think we have some moral responsibility to do so. The second issue is one of American leadership. We have the capacity, the military capability, and I think the moral resolve to do the right thing throughout the world where we are needed. That is what this bill is all about. It is about sustaining America's global military leadership. That is why I support this bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, a constituent of mine by the name of Ted Hudson, received a subpoena for all of the telephone records of his wife from the U.S. House of Representatives, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, investigating campaign financing. This subpoena was issued only because his wife's name is LiPing Chen. His wife has a Chinese surname. Mr. Speaker, this is a 20-year civil servant who categorically denies any involvement by him or his wife in political fund-raising for any party in the 1996 campaign or any other campaign back to 1986 when the $50 tax credit was repealed and at that time he was a Republican. The only reason his wife's telephone records were subpoenaed is because she has a Chinese surname. This Congress has no business turning our Government into a police state. This is totally inappropriate and I will come to the floor every day until this subpoena is withdrawn and an apology is issued to this family. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter I received from Mr. Hudson and an attachment from his telephone company. Alexandria, VA, October 26, 1997. Hon. James P. Moran, House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Re Committee on Government Reform and Oversight abuse of subpoena power. Dear Mr. Moran: My wife, LiPing Chen Hudson, received the attached letter on Saturday, October 25, from the telephone company stating: ``We received a subpoena from the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America, requesting toll billing records for your telephone number . . . for the period of January 1, 1994 through September 17, 1997.'' My wife is a citizen of Taiwan, an alien with conditional permanent residency in this country (in 1995 your office was instrumental in getting the Immigration and Naturalization Service to process our application), who spends most of her time caring for our 22-month-old daughter. As we are on the verge of applying to remove the conditional status, I am very concerned about how the INS may view a Congressional subpoena on her record. We do not know why she is being investigated. The committee doing so is the one investigating alleged campaign fundraising abuses. Li had a Chinese surname. She once held a low level job (translating and staffing meetings with the FBI and Secret Service) in the security office of the Taiwan non- embassy here (a job that she resigned in 1995 in order to marry me, a one-time registered Republican (I was a callow youth at the time) and currently a 20-year mid-level Federal civil servant who hasn't given a penny to any politician or party since the $50 tax credit was repealed in 1986). In her job, she had no contact with American political parties or politicians. We categorically deny any involvement, by my wife or myself, in political fundraising for any party in the 1996 campaign or any other campaign since 1986. I would like for you to intervene on our behalf. I would like this committee to withdraw this subpoena and expunge it from its records. Thank you for your help in this matter. Sincerely, Ted Hudson.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Interior appropriations conference report, H.R. 2107, and to express my appreciation for the hard work of my chairman Ralph Regula, the distinguished ranking member, Sidney Yates, and my other colleagues on the subcommittee. I also want to recognize the staff of the subcommittee, including Debbie Weatherley, Barbara Waneman, Loretta Beaumont, Chris Topik, Joel Kaplan, and Angie Perry. I have thoroughly enjoyed working on the committee and agree with Chairman Regula that this is one of the most important communities in the House. I know that some of my colleagues still have problems with this bill because of concerns about the environment. This bill certainly is not perfect. For example, I opposed the provision allowing unlimited use of timber purchaser credits, which funds the construction of new National Forest logging roads. These purchaser credits allow timber companies to build roads throughout our forest system and be reimbursed at taxpayer expense. It's bad policy and I regret that this provision remains in the conference report. I was also concerned about the provision preventing the revision of forest management plans until the Forest Service issues a final rule on forest plans. Two forests in Virginia are currently on the process of revising their plans and such a provision would have prevented them from completing the work to help bring needed changes into the management of these forests. I support the changes made to the language which exempt plans currently being revised from the provision in the bill and appreciate any clarification the chairman may give on this issue. There are other provisions in this bill that I have problems with. Looking at the bill as a whole, however, I think it represents a fair compromise on most of the important issues and represents a step forward in funding important initiatives that benefit our environment. The $699 million appropriation for land acquisitions will ensure that two important acquisitions, the Headwaters Forest and the New World Mine can take place, protecting fragile ecosystems from environmental harm. The remaining funds can be used by the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the BLM, and the Fish and Wildlife Service for additional land acquisitions in environmentally sensitive areas. I am pleased with the changes in the bill removing provisions allowing Alaska Native corporations to file claims to 30,000 acres of coastal lands within the Lake Clark National Park. Any division of the park, particularly of the coast line, would destroy the integrity of the park as a complete ecosystem and prohibit essential public access to the park. The additional $136 million in the bill for the Everglades will help provide needed restoration of flora and fauna within the Everglades system; $384 million for maintenance of our National Parks; and an additional $41 million for operating the National Wildlife Refuges will be used for operational and maintenance backlogs on refuges and parklands. This additional funding is sorely needed and will help to improve our refuge and park systems, making them more accessible for all Americans. As Chairman Regula has mentioned, there is a large increase in energy conservation programs under the bill, including State energy programs and weatherization assistance programs, which help low-income families insulate their homes to make them more energy efficient. Finally, I am particularly pleased that the conference committee agreed to restore funding to the NEA. Our country needs the NEA to bring the arts to underserved, underprivileged communities across this country. We have no better tool to help leverage private dollars with Federal dollars to generate quality arts programming. The NEA is a success story and we need to put politics aside and recognize how much it does for citizens across the country. I hope that in the next Congress we can provide a much needed increase to NEA funding so that it does not merely survive, but flourish. Mr. Chairman, the conference agreement appropriates a total of $13.8 billion for fiscal year 1998 for the Department of Interior and related agencies. While we can all point to certain programs within the bill with which we might disagree, overall I think the conference agreement will improve our environment and enhance the stewardship of our natural resources. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the resilience of a remarkable northern Virginia family. In April I was on the floor commemorating a young woman whose life was cut short in an act of senseless, random violence. At that time, the Mt. Vernon community in my district was attempting to come to grips with the loss of Ann Marie Harris, who was shot and killed in Tacoma, WA, during her spring break. Madam Speaker, since this senseless tragedy Ann's friends and family have worked hard to keep her memory alive through the founding of ``Ann's Campaign for a Safer America.'' This organization is working to help all of us live the life that Ann radiated; a life in which we care more and are more understanding of each other. I have the deepest respect for the Harris family as they try to turn this tragedy into a positive contribution for our communities. The Harrises have undertaken a speaking campaign to spread their experience through school presentation, conferences, and other forums. They will work with parents and school groups to prevent tragedies like this from recurring. Madam Speaker, it epitomizes the best of the human spirit. The Harris family is truly an example for us all. They have taken this shattering experience and turned it into a living tribute to their daughter. Ann's exceptional energy and enthusiasm lives on through these efforts. Mr. Speaker, ``Ann's Campaign for A Safer America'' epitomizes the very best of the human spirit. I can think of no more appropriate memorial from Ann's family and friends than this effort to bring more understanding and less violence to our community.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury Postal Service, and General Government.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood].

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman what bill he was referring to. He said H.R. 1797. We are not debating H.R. 1797. That must be some outdated bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Etheridge].

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands [Ms. Christian-Green].

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I am opposed to the bill, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire how much time we have remaining on both sides.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask the gentleman whether he supports the Moran substitute, the amendment that we are proposing.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Kilpatrick].

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Conyers].