Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by taking this opportunity to express my appreciation for the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] and the work that he has put into this appropriations bill. He and I do disagree on many of the provisions in this bill and, in fact, on many of the issues considered by this Congress. We come from different parts of the country and very different congressional districts. We have very different ideologies, philosophies, and influences that govern our decisions. Despite all of this and despite our disagreements, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] and his staff have been honest, forthright, and fair throughout consideration of this bill. I am also deeply impressed with the way that the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] has been able to bounce back from his stroke last summer. Such an ailment would challenge any of us as we try to continue to resume a normal life. Through it all, he has not only worked to resume his responsibilities as a Member of the House but has also carried forth his responsibilities as chairman of the District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee. I say to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor], he has remained a gentleman from the day he took over as chairman of this subcommittee, and I appreciate the opportunity to have worked with him. Mr. Chairman, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act is never an easy bill to pass. The Congress has the responsibility to ensure that Federal funds appropriated to the District of Columbia are spent wisely. We have the responsibility to ensure that congressionally created entities operate properly. We have the statutory responsibility to approve the local expenditure of locally raised revenues. Yet, some Members are willing to abdicate that responsibility and vote against the District of Columbia Appropriations Act unless, they can interject national and ideological issues into this debate. The District of Columbia Appropriations Act is the smallest appropriations bill, yet it becomes a magnet for controversial and extraneous riders. Congress has never been able to resist the opportunity to play city council for a day and impose its will on this city. In fact, when I first ran for Congress in 1990, my opponent boasted of how he attached a rider to the D.C. bill that prohibited the University of the District of Columbia from spending money to buy a controversial painting. My colleagues may remember that issue. He probably does. That was 6 years ago. Every Member, well, not every Member, but a number of Members attempt to advance their own political careers at the expense of the District of Columbia. Since then, I have seen amendment after amendment being offered to the D.C. appropriations bill that addressed national or ideologic concerns. Prohibitions on the use of funds for abortion, prohibitions on the use of funds to allow individuals to include domestic partners in their health insurance policies have been perennial amendments. In fact, they have become so common that the District of Columbia's city council is unwilling to fight them anymore and already included these riders in their own budget submission. So all those issues that have been given that they have accepted them, they are already in the D.C. Council's budget. Recently, there have been amendments on vouchers, on charter schools, on Davis-Bacon. In the Senate, there have been amendments changing the Senate procedures on the use of holds. Now, what does that have to do with the District of Columbia changing an arcane procedure within the District's own rules? That is not even relevant to the House, never mind the Nation or the District of Columbia. But it was an amendment that was attempted to be attached to this bill. The House bill is more of the same. The actual appropriations language in the bill ends on page 27. The next 102 pages is dedicated to general provisions. Think of that. The appropriations process is concluded after 27 pages, and then we have got 102 pages trying to do what is properly under the purview of the authorizing committee and does not belong in an appropriations bill. Some of the provisions are good. I would like to see some of these things enacted. Some of them are clearly wrong. Almost all of them go beyond the city's request, and they interject ancillary issues into this debate. Now, in defense of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor], I have to say that the bill we are dealing with today is much better than the bill that was considered by the subcommittee. Of course, that is faint praise, since the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] put those provisions in the subcommittee. But we have been able to work closely together and we have struck those provisions that cut the local budget by $300 million. It would have reduced the city employment by more than 2,000 positions and imposed a residency requirement on city employees. Those issues were struck. Those are not part of this bill, and that is very fortunate. But the manager's amendment that we will offer today still is necessary, because that further does improve this bill, stakes out more things that we both now agree ought not to be in the bill. It strikes a number of provisions that have unintended consequences, things that we never intended to do, that would have adverse consequences on the District or are simply not appropriate for inclusion in the bill. But there remains, Mr. Chairman, much more to be done. And that is why I will be offering a substitute amendment that will not only remove the remaining problems in this bill but will also ensure that we can actually pass the bill and have it enacted into law before the continuing resolution expires. We owe that to this country, to the responsibility we assume as national representatives in this Congress, and we certainly owe it to the District of Columbia residents to give the District of Columbia its spending bill, not to force them into a continuing resolution situation where the Control Board cannot even issue any long-term contracts it is going to cost them much more money to operate. It is not right to force them into a continuing resolution situation. The only way to avoid that is to agree to the amendment that brings us back to the Senate version. We have 3 more working days before the existing congressional continuing resolution expires. Let us pass my substitute amendment and get this bill signed into law during those 3 days. After that has passed, we will have plenty of time to debate school vouchers, Davis-Bacon, medical malpractice, welfare caps, prohibiting helicopter flights, restricting the use of automobiles under 26 miles per gallon, new financial management system contracts, charter school leases, cutting school administrators, closing Pennsylvania Avenue, repealing the NEA's tax exemption, restricting the ability to fire the chief financial officer and the Inspector General, and every other ancillary provision that have been added to this appropriations bill. Nobody wants me to repeat that long, long list again. But it makes a point. Those are all issues that do not belong in this bill. I support many of these provisions, though. I mean, I would like to see them done. Get them done by the authorizing committee. I would also support, though, the District's Control Board. We set it up. It is doing a good job. The District's authorizing committee knew what they were doing. They have a responsibility. Let them fulfill their responsibility. Let local governments, this is a basic fundamental Republican premise, let local governments plan their own affairs. Let them raise their own revenue, and let them spend their own money. Let them best determine how to serve their citizens. It is their responsibility under our democratic form of government. Let them fulfill their responsibility. Let us fulfill our responsibility. Support my amendment that will let us go back to the Senate version, which is the consensus budget. Get the bill enacted. Do the right thing. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that [Ms. Pryce] mentioned Hine Junior High School, which is a very fine public junior high school. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer]. (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], my friend and the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, as the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] said earlier, the bill that we have been working for for some time that deals with project-based section 8 assistance is incorporated, virtually in its entirety, into this appropriations bill. I think this is a very important step, as the principal focus of our bill is to reduce the cost of the section 8 program and provide the certainty of continued housing assistance for those in need. Our reform proposal reins in exorbitant rental contracts that can reach 180 percent of the fair market rent, and it helps kick the bad owners out of the program. Existing debts on all FHA-insured property are restructured to lower operating and maintenance costs and bring Federal rent subsidies down to local market levels. In return, owners of multifamily housing must agree to maintain the property for low- income tenants for at least another 20 years. I think this proposal is a thoughtful and reasonable response to a complex and very difficult issue. So I was very pleased to see almost all of the elements of this proposal incorporated into this appropriations bill. I want to particularly thank the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], my copatron, for her tireless work to make sure that this issue got resolved this year, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], of the authorizing committee and the House leadership for permitting this issue to be resolved through the appropriations process. Hopefully, we will be able to start a new chapter in low-income housing programs that meet the needs of low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled with decent, fiscally responsible, and affordable housing. I thank the chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] for yielding me the time, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder], I thank the Committee on Rules, and of course the chair and minority ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. I think this is a very important step and certainly plan to vote for the bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson], for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this issue, as well as a number of other colleagues who are trying to make the point that we are really at a point of absurdity on this issue. Mr. Speaker, this is the second time now in 2 days to instruct conferees on the reinstatement of the Mexico City policy provisions. Yesterday we talked about the appropriations bill. Today we are talking about the authorization. The fact is, it does not really matter what we are talking about here, it should be debated in conference. We have already debated it ad nauseam on the House floor, and to begin to offer a motion to instruct on every controversial issue that comes before this body and is not reconciled before conference is a waste of time and it is an assault on the legislative process. We cannot get our work done if we keep acting in this manner. I urge my colleagues to allow the conferees on the foreign appropriations bill and the foreign relations authorization act to do their job in debating this issue, without these unnecessary and intrusive motions to instruct. Leave it to them. They know the issue. They are doing the best they can. They will come up with the best resolution. This is not a good use of our time. We need to defeat this instruction.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today in support of S. 819. This legislation is identical to the bill I introduced June 10, 1997, naming the United States Court House on South Washington Street in Alexandria, Virginia the Chief Bankruptcy Judge Martin V. B. Bostetter, Jr. Court House. The Bostetter Court House will be a lasting reminder of the distinguished career of Judge Bostetter and commemorates his numerous contributions to bankruptcy law in Northern Virginia. Judge Bostetter's distinguished legal career began in 1952 and took place entirely within an eight block radius of Old Town, Alexandria. He served as Special Assistant to the City Attorney of Alexandria in 1953 in the capacity of City Prosecutor. In 1957, he became an Associate Judge of Alexandria's Municipal court system. Judge Bostetter was then appointed to the United States Bankruptcy Court in 1959 and presently serves as a United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia. In 1985, he was appointed Chief Judge and now ranks among the longest sitting full-time bankruptcy judges in the United States. In 1959, Judge Bostetter established the First Bankruptcy Court in Alexandria, in the former Federal District Courthouse--38 years later he resides in the same building as the Chief Judge of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. He has taken a special interest and great pride in the ongoing renovation of this historic building. During his service on the bench, Chief Judge Bostetter has seen the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia grow to three divisions with five full-time judges and staff, 90 employees in its Clerk's Office and an average of more than 2,600 bankruptcy filings per month. The Alexandria Division has two full-time judges, 22 employees and averages approximately 790 bankruptcy filings per month. When Judge Bostetter began his career on the bench with approximately nine bankruptcy filings per month and one employee. He remained the only full time bankruptcy judge in Alexandria from July 1959 until December 1994. During the 1980's and early 1990's his case load swelled to about two times the volume expected for a single judge to preside over. Chief Judge Bostetter has been a dedicated and loyal public servant, serving the people of Virginia faithfully with honor, integrity and distinction during his tenure as a bankruptcy judge. He has fulfilled his duties with a strong sense of fairness and pragmatism, while adhering to the constraints imposed by the Bankruptcy Code and related case law. Moreover, he has set very high standards for the lawyers who practice before him, thereby making those lawyers better prepared and more effective advocates for their respective client's interest. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Shuster, Subcommittee Chairman Jay Kim and ranking members Jim Oberstar and Jim Traficant, along with the committee and subcommittee staff for their efforts to bring this legislation to the floor. I truly appreciate their cooperation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I would ask, as I read the amendment, this would add $1 million to the U.S. Trade Representative's office to continue the good work they are doing in terms of representing us and furthering the globalization of our economy, and the progress of our domestic production. I do not see, I am baffled by some of the things that are being said. But the amendment itself is only a $1 million increase to the U.S. Trade Representative's office. If that is what it does, I do not have a problem with it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity for the House to do the right thing. I know in my heart that the chairman as well as the ranking Democrat on this subcommittee know that the National Endowment for the Arts deserves funding. I think that most people that have looked into what the National Endowment for the Arts has done over the last several years, particularly since Jane Alexander took over, recognize that all the projects are scrutinized, that the ones that have been used for rhetorical purposes are all past history. They were marginal projects, anyway. They certainly do not define what the National Endowment for the Arts is all about. What defines what the National Endowment for the Arts is all about is a young woman that grew up just a few blocks from the Kennedy Center but never could afford to go to the Kennedy Center. When she was a teenager, she attended a National Endowment for the Arts opera recital and realized she wanted to sing opera. Now she is an internationally acclaimed star because the National Endowment for the Arts gave the kind of inspiration to Denyce Graves as it has to many thousands of artists around the country and to communities that wanted their people to be able to appreciate what this country's artists have to offer. These are not grants that go to the well-funded cities. These are grants that go out into communities that appreciate the arts but lack the funding to offer them to their citizens. We heard from the chairman of CBS last week. The gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] sponsored the breakfast. He stood up, and said he represented corporate America. He told us that when the NEA gives its endorsement to a project, they know that it is worth investing in. They want to invest in the arts. They know it is in the best interests of their employees, that it is in the best interest of America. But if we were to give it to the States or to otherwise eviscerate what the NEA stands for, then we will not have that kind of credibility, that the projects that need funding will not get funding. It is only the projects who have the contacts, who know the wealthy people, who know the right people who will get funded. Thousands of other projects around the country will not get funded because they do not have a National Endowment for the Arts ready, willing, and able to fund the most meritorious artists. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members of this House to do the right thing, support NEA, and follow the lead of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], our ranking Democrat, in instructing the conferees to restore its funding.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would ask be heard on the point of order. I will not take but a few seconds. As the Chair and ranking member have said, this was fully debated in the full committee consideration. It clearly is legislation on an appropriation bill. It belongs in government operations. It does not belong on an appropriations bill. I personally think the Cooperative Purchasing Agreement is a good government measure. I am glad that it is in this bill, and it certainly does not deserve to be taken out by an amendment that is not in order for debate. So I strongly support the point of order having been raised, and I thank the chairman for his attention.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Goodling amendment and in favor of finding out just how well this country is educating its future work force. Today we are behind other nations in educational achievement. Forty percent of our children are not reading at the level they should be; 20 percent of our 8th graders are not even taking algebra. We know these statistics because we recently conducted studies comparing the achievement of our students with those in other countries. This analysis is a valuable tool for educators, and the administration is trying to conduct a similar analysis to determine how local school districts compare nationally. It is the same kind of approach to find out what we need to be doing to better serve our students. Despite what proponents of this amendment argue, no such mechanism for analysis currently exists to compare and find the information we need on a national basis. The National Assessment of Educational Progress, for example, is a sample test for a variety of subjects. The tests are not universally administered and are administered as a blind study telling us only national trends. The new national test would be administered uniformly, it would provide a scale by which standards and progress can be measured, and it will help all of our local educational authorities assess the areas in their curriculum that need improvement. Another critical difference in the new test is they would be available to parents and teachers who can chart their own children's progress and more easily assess their child's individual educational needs. If Johnny is the worst reading student in the 4th grade, it may help the teacher to know that he is actually way above the national standard. We need to know this kind of information. Many of the discussions relating to education in this bill have focused on getting parents more involved in their child's education. These steps are a major part of that process. Experts in education, including the National Education Association, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National School Boards Association, they all support the proposal to administer a voluntary national test. I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong. In addition, the proposal has overwhelming support from the business community, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the presidents and CEOs of hundreds of technology, manufacturing, service firms throughout the country. The Goodling amendment would prohibit the use of educational improvement funding for the development of a national testing program in reading and mathematics. It is shortsighted because the ability to compare educational outcomes nationally is the critical first step necessary to improve our educational standards. This proposal is only in its infancy but its potential is enormous. While I understand the committee chairman's interest in securing jurisdiction over this testing program, this is too important to be stopped because of that kind of territorial dispute. In fact, former Secretary Lamar Alexander used similar authority to develop voluntary national tests. We need to do so and we need to encourage the pursuit of excellence among our future work force.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it gives my colleagues, Mr. Davis of Virginia and Mr. Wolf, and me great pleasure to rise today and pay tribute to Mr. Thomas E. Waldrop, an outstanding member of the northern Virginia community. Tom is this year's Founder's Award winner from the Northern Virginia Community Foundation. The Founder's Award is given annually to an individual who has demonstrated civic and humanitarian responsibility, and personal participation and leadership in northern Virginia community civic bodies. In addition, the award is presented to an individual who is contributing to improve the quality of life in northern Virginia through leadership in one or more of the following five areas: The arts, education, health, youth, and civic improvement. Tom is an individual who has made a very strong positive impact on northern Virginia as well as the entire State of Virginia. He is a Virginia native who was born in Montpelier, VA on April 8, 1937. He received his higher education from Virginia schools. Tom received a bachelor's degree in economics from Randolph-Macon College and a master's degree in business from Virginia Commonwealth University. Tom also served his country, and he served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1958 to 1960. Tom is currently the president and chief executive officer for Media General Cable which is headquartered in northern Virginia. He has served in that position since 1984. Since that time, Tom has directed the development of one of the Nation's largest and most sophisticated cable television systems. Tom's career with Media General Corp. began in 1967 when he started with Richmond Newspapers. He was quickly promoted and appointed the operations manager of Media General Financial Services at the beginning of 1968. Tom went on to serve as their vice president and as assistant general manager. After his success with the Financial Services division, Tom moved to Media General's Piedmont Publishing Co. where he worked as their business manager, and eventually became the general manager. He left Piedmont when he moved to Media General Cable in northern Virginia. Tom has shown boundless energy and has made it a priority to work in his community to improve the quality of life for all of us. He works with a wide range of organizations that have made northern Virginia the dynamic, vibrant area it is. Northern Virginia's diverse community has grown dramatically since the early 1980's. It has been successful in maintaining a community atmosphere with the work of people like Tom. Tom works closely with both the northern Virginia arts and business communities. He is in his fourth term as chairman of the board of directors of the Arts Council of Fairfax County. He also remains on the board of directors for the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce, the Fairfax County Public School's Business Advisory, the Fairfax Symphony, the Northern Virginia Community College Education Fund, the Northern Virginia Technology Council, the Tower Club, and the Wolf Trap Foundation. In addition to all of these associations, Tom has previously served as the director of the American Heart Association's Fairfax Board and has chaired the development committee for ``Spotlight on the Arts'' in the city of Fairfax. He continues to demonstrate his willingness to lead the northern Virginia community in a wide range of areas. Tom is also associated with a number of other activities where he volunteers his time and services to further enhance our community. He continues to work with the Northern Virginia Business Roundtable, the Virginia Opera's Northern Virginia advisory committee, and the corporate advisory committee for the Women's Center of Northern Virginia. Tom also works with national organizations to improve the quality of our cable television nationwide including serving on the board of directors for the National Cable Television Association and C- SPAN, the Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network. Mr. Speaker, we know our colleagues join us in honoring and thanking Tom Waldrop for his achievements in working to improve northern Virginia for all of its residents. We appreciate all of his work in making northern Virginia one of the finest places to live and work. For those of us that know of Tom's commitment to northern Virginia, it is no surprise that the Northern Virginia Community Foundation has decided to award him their prestigious Founder's Award at a gala on October 24, 1997. It is a well deserved award.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to hear that this amendment will be accepted. It should be. This is one of the most exciting things that is happening in the area of educational reform. I particularly want to give credit to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], for being in the vanguard of this effort legislatively. I am the ranking subcommittee Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. One of the most frustrating things that we have to deal with is the District of Columbia public school system. It may be the worst of any urban area in the country. Even those intimately involved in it will recognize that. But the most exciting thing that is happening within that school system is what is happening in the area of charter schools. We, in the suburbs, have about 50,000 unfilled jobs. There are at least that many people within the District of Columbia who could be filling those jobs who are not employed. Yet, we cannot make that match. One of the ways that we are going to attempt to match those jobs with those people who are willing to work and have the basic skills is through the charter school movement, by putting in vocational education, vocational training, bringing in businesses, making the education relevant to the jobs that are available for the graduates. We had more than 40 good applications for charter schools for the District of Columbia. We cannot possibly fund that many. We will be lucky if we can fund half of the well-qualified ones. This amendment is going to give us more resources so that we can fund more of those excellent efforts at finding ways to get around the institutional orthodoxies, all the institutional structures that mitigate against reform and enabling us to do the right thing for the young people of the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia is just a microcosm. This is happening all over the country. Every once in a while institutions need to be reformed. We need to bring good innovative ideas in. Think about them for a while, throw them around, see what the effects would be of implementing them, and then, in the case of this idea, we can now implement it, we can now change the lives of thousands of students around the country and, in many ways, change that whole institutional structure of our public school system so that we are not bound by all those limitations toward excellence in both students, teachers, and administrators. It is an excellent idea. It is an excellent program. It is an excellent thing that the chairman is doing in accepting this amendment to give us more resources to devote to see to it that these good ideas are actually put into practice where they are needed around the country. I thank the chairman.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as you will recall, we debated this issue of the Mexico City policy back in February when we talked about whether the family planning funds should be released. We debated it again in June when we talked about the State Department authorization. And we will continue to be debating it next year and every year thereafter until we come up with a constructive solution. This is a constructive compromise. This addresses what the opponents have said that they objected to. This says that we will not fund family planning programs where abortion is used as a method of birth control. This says that we will not. So why not agree, shake hands? We have resolved a very difficult issue and now we can work constructively in other countries where women and children and men are forced to live lives of abject poverty, because that is what we condemn them to if we do not make family planning information available to women so that they can control the size of their families. We have a responsibility, we who live in a country so prosperous and so free, to do something for those people who do not. Please support this amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today's invocation was given by the Reverend Don Bowen who has been the Pastor at the Downtown Baptist Church in Alexandria VA, for 30 years. He is retiring at the end of this month, and it is our privilege and honor that he has an opportunity to address this body. He has done a tremendous service to the entire Washington metropolitan area, in mission outreach, in serving our youth, in so many areas. He has been the president of the ministers conference and the president of the Mount Vernon Baptist Association. He has been the chairman of the Committee to Study Baptist Priorities of the 1980's and beyond. He has achieved any number of credentials, but most important he is a man of God who has served his community in an exemplary fashion. He has also preached revivals around the country, in Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Maryland, West Virginia, and particularly, in Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, that will be my segue to yield to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker], who attends the Downtown Baptist Church and would like to say a few words as well.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for this confirmation and his strong leadership in this area. I thank my friend and the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], as well. I hope the bill passes.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I hope this bill passes because I doubt that there are any two Members of this body that are any more well liked and respected than the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan]. But I would like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman if I could. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] and the members of the subcommittee for the attention and the funding that you have given to demining activities in this bill. I know that you and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] are well aware of the challenge that land mines pose to humanitarian development, refugee resettlement and rehabilitation throughout the developing world. Many of these efforts cannot even begin or must be suspended or terminated until the land mines are marked or removed. These areas, mine awareness, education and demining activities, must go hand in hand with humanitarian relief and development programs. A number of our private voluntary organizations, nongovernmental organizations are trying to initiate and implement these sorts of antiland mine programs. However, we have learned that these demining funds have not been made available to them. It is my understanding that private voluntary organizations and nongovernmental organizations may apply for these demining funds and that these funds may be used for mine awareness and education programs, mapping and marking and the training of deminers as well as the removal of mines. Can the chairman confirm my interpretation?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. President, nice going; White House staff, nice going; the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], well done; the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], we have a good balanced budget agreement here. The most important thing is that it is balanced not just in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of priorities: A $900 billion reduction in deficit spending over the next 10 years, but the highest increase in higher education since the GI bill of 1945, the largest increase in children's health protection since Medicaid in 1965, more than 30 years ago. We have got a $500-per-child tax credit for 27 million families. We have got entitlement reform. We have got a lot of the brownfields and empowerment zones tax initiatives, $3 billion for welfare to work initiatives. The fact is that speaking as a Democrat, the White House got what it wanted, which is our priorities--better education and health care for our children, tax fairness for middle class families, and an end to the legacy of debt we have been deferring to our children. This bill deserves to be supported. It is a fiscally responsible bill, it is a bill that emphasizes our priorities. It is a bill that on both sides of the aisle we should vote for.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule, but I want to make it clear that I support this bill. I think we will find that many Members, at least on the Democratic side of the aisle, will vote against the rule even though they do support the bill itself. Now why would we vote against the rule if we support the bill itself? We have a responsibility to learn as much as we can about what we are voting on. There are a thousand pages in this bill. None of us will have read it. What we have to do is to take on faith what is contained in the bill. None of us would read all of the bill, even if we went by regular order and had an entire day. But what we would do is to look at those components of the bill that we have worked on personally, that we understand fully, and that we can advise our colleagues on. We do not have that ability when a thousand-page bill is presented at 3:30 in the morning and then the next morning we have to vote on it. That is what is going to happen today. I think our constituents expect more from us. They expect us to be better informed. Why are we going to support the bill? What are we taking on faith? Well, this bill would accomplish 10-year deficit savings of $900 billion. Think of how important this bill is. Nine hundred billion dollars in reduced spending over the next 10 years. It would accomplish the first balanced budget since 1969. It has $24 billion in block grants for children's health covering 5 million currently uninsured children. This is the largest expansion of children's health we have done in more than 30 years since Medicaid was enacted in 1965. It increases taxes on cigarettes in the spending part of this bill, a very controversial issue, although one which I happen to support. It restores SSI and Medicaid benefits to legal immigrants. It spends $3 billion in grants for welfare to work. It increases spending on food stamps by $1.5 billion for people who otherwise would have fallen through the cracks. It cuts Medicare by $115 billion in 5 years, reducing payments to hospitals and doctors so that we can keep the Medicare trust fund solvent, but we need to know the particulars of that. It cuts $4.8 billion from Federal employees' retirement plans, a very controversial issue, particularly in an area such as I represent where we have many Federal employees that are going to be paying half a percent more for their retirement plan. I would like to see the full legislative language on that. It cuts $1.8 billion in student loans and $1.8 billion in housing over 5 years. These are very controversial, very important issues. As we understand them, the decisions that were made were understandable compromises in virtually every case. But again we are having to take this on faith. I do think that the country would have been better served had this rule given the Members of this body a customary full day, as we normally have. There is a reason for that rule, so that if one is interested in an issue, they can take 24 hours and make sure that they know what they are voting on. We could be staying in Friday, we could have a full day, and we would have the opportunity to be knowledgeably voting on as important a bill as this body has considered for a very long time. We would be able to be much more responsible with respect to our vote which is what our constituents expect of us. We have gotten into a pattern of waiving these rules. We ought to understand there is a reason for these rules, there is a reason why they should be followed, and I think we need to oppose this rule, although from everything we can learn that we have been told by others that were in the negotiations, a handful of people that were actually part of the negotiations, this is a bill we can and we should support and I would urge support for the balanced budget agreement itself.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I do not rise for the purpose of asking for anything in this bill but simply asking for the Members to take note of what is happening here. At a time when all of our other bills have been so partisan, contentious, destructive of the comity of this House, we have a bill that sailed through committee, that is going to sail through this floor in just the way that our subcommittee chairman and ranking member and the Chairman and ranking member of the full Committee would like every appropriations bill to go through. So I would hope that the members of the Committee on Rules and the Members of the majority leadership would take note of what is happening today, what happens when you treat every Member with respect and evenhandedness. This bill deserves to be passed overwhelmingly. It is a fair bill. It is respectful of every Member in this body. The results are clear. I would hope for the sake of the chairmen of the other subcommittees that we could have more bills like this.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I appreciate the comments of the chairman of the committee making it clear that he does not have substantive opposition to what this amendment intends to do. He does have concerns apparently with semantics and with the politics of certain code words and all, and I appreciate that. I am not surprised, though, to see him behind what such an important amendment attempts to do. Maybe we can call it something other than a work force coordinator, but that is exactly what our schools need. I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] offering the amendment, because it is time we stopped just talking and started doing something about this issue. In the Washington metropolitan area, we have 19,000 jobs related to computers that we cannot fill. The average salary is $47,000. Thousands of these jobs do not require any kind of college education. And what are we doing? We are going to India, we are going to Pakistan, we are going to Ireland--some people might not object to that--but nevertheless we are going every place we can find to find people to fill these jobs at very low wages. Yet they do not require any skills that our high school graduates cannot acquire, it is just that our high school graduates have not acquired those skills because they did not have the benefit of a vocational education curriculum. We have thousands of young people in this Washington area who are desperate to find jobs. What a disservice that we have done to them. They get out of high school and they have virtually nothing to take with them when they go looking for a job. No skills, minimal education, little work preparation. Why? Because our schools are not geared up in many ways to create a match between the jobs that are available and the kids that can fill them. What a crying shame to have thousands of kids desperate for jobs, desperate for employment, desperate to find a way to support their family and yet also to have thousands of jobs unfilled. That is what this amendment is all about. It is about trying to get someone who is going to make that match, who is going to work for the kids by working between the schools and the businesses, to consult with businesses, bring them in, tell the kids what jobs are available, what they pay, and then to help put together the kind of curricula that is going to be relevant for the jobs that are available. Unfortunately, what has happened is that many of our vocational education schools have become a dumping ground. In many ways voc ed means a dumping ground, primarily for disruptive students. This is the attitude that this amendment can help change. In the District of Columbia we have a voc ed school, and it could have become a good one. What happened was that the other schools started putting their most disruptive students in that school, and now it is virtually a reform school. They are not going to like me to say that, so I will not give the specific name of the school. But it is not serving their needs. What a crying shame. Yet if we had this kind of liaison between the business community and the school system, we could serve a lot of their needs. We desperately need their talents and their skills. We need to develop vocational education as an immediate step to getting a good job, to being able to go to an employer with the kind of skills and basic education and attitude that they are looking for. So our school system is disserving these kids. Are we really going to pass this kind of bill, the Perkins bill here without addressing this most critical need? I would hope not. I would hope that we would pass this amendment, that we would underscore the need to bring the business community in for its own self-interest, in influencing the curricula, in giving the real opportunity, the real access to the jobs that are available to these kids who desperately need them. This is an important amendment. I would urge my colleagues' strong support for it. I appreciate the support of the chairman of the committee. I know that the ranking member of the full committee from Missouri is very strongly in support of vocational education. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] for introducing it. I would certainly expect and hope that this body would pass it overwhelmingly.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, while Father Clark's church is actually in the district of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], it is I who will introduce him. Father Clark is the pastor of Holy Spirit Catholic Church in Annandale, VA. It may be of some interest that Father Joe Clark is the grandson of the campaign manager and the speech writer for James Michael Curley, the former mayor of Boston. But I am sure that Father Clark is making amends for that by serving his parish very well. Actually, I only say that in jest. I know his grandfather would be very proud of him today as he is rightfully proud of his grandfather. And every Irishman should be proud of all that Mayor Curley did for the Boston Irish. Father Clark is a modest man of the cloth, but I would like to address a few remarks about someone who is neither, but is in the audience today, Mr. Patrick Troy, who is a guest with Father Clark. Pat Troy deserves to be recognized today. For the last 35 years he has done a great deal for this country, particularly for the Irish-American community, and on the 150th anniversary of the great potato famine that brought so many Irish into the United States, Mr. Troy should be recognized as one of the most effective representatives of the Irish-Americans in this country. Twenty-five years ago he started his own radio show in the Washington metropolitan area, and broadcasts the glory and beauty of Irish music to everyone, particularly Irish-Americans, and keeps people posted on Irish-American cultural developments. Fifteen years ago he started a restaurant called Ireland's Own, and the annual St. Patrick's Day parade in Alexandria, VA. Pat Troy is an indispensable member of the Washington metropolitan area's community. For many, many years he has been absolutely dedicated to the pursuit of peace in Northern Ireland and to the Project Children Program, which brings Irish and Protestant children alike over to the United States. They live together, they work together, they get to know and appreciate each other. They are doing a tremendous amount of good in terms of finding reconciliation in Northern Ireland. He is also the founder of the John F. Kennedy Division of the Ancient Order of Hibernians in the Washington area, so I do want to recognize Pat Troy for all that he has done for our community and for this country.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I certainly want to associate myself with the remarks of the chairman of our subcommittee and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], the ranking member of our subcommittee. They have made the point that this is a very profound change in legislation that we are attempting to add to an appropriations bill, but that is a technical reason for opposing this amendment. There are moral and substantive reasons for opposing this amendment. Let me suggest the first moral argument. The Native Americans in this land are the poorest of the poor in the United States. Why? Because we, descendants of those European colonists, took their land and their life-style. By 1887, they had about 138 million acres, a minute fraction of the land that they used to live on, and then over the next 47 years we took 90 million acres back from them. Since 1934, the Department of the Interior has restored 10 percent of that land, about 9 million acres, and that is the kind of land we are talking about, a very small fraction, virtually all of it land that used to be within the original boundaries of their reservations that we are talking about here. Let me suggest another moral reason. In 1886, the Supreme Court noted that: ``The tribes owe no allegiance to the States and receive from them no protection. Because of the local ill feeling, the people in the States where tribes are found are often their deadliest enemies.'' And for that reason a law was passed called the General Allotment Act. It actually did not accomplish what was intended originally, but the fact is we have acknowledged that the only way that the American Indian can be respected and protected in terms of their rights is for the Federal Government to have a unique relationship between federally recognized Indian tribal governments and the Congress. Only the U.S. Congress, has the responsibility to defend tribal governments from intrusion by State governments. Let me suggest some other reasons though, that this amendment should be defeated. This amendment would unconstitutionally give State and local governments absolute veto power over each tribal application to place Indian owned land in trust status. It would provide no remedy to a tribe if a State or local government flatly refused to negotiate a tax agreement with the tribe, and the result would be years of costly litigation. It purports to fix a problem that simply does not exist. State governments can and do collect lawfully imposed sales taxes on Indian trust lands. The Supreme Court has held time and again that product sales to nonmembers on trust lands for use off reservation are subject to State sales taxes. Most states, including Oklahoma, have developed a variety of methods for collecting those taxes. It assumes that there is no process for protecting State and local government interests when lands are considered for transferring to trust status. In fact, the current law already protects State and government interests when the Secretary considers land for trust status. Under the current secretarial regulations, the Secretary must consult with State and local governments prior to making a final determination on taking land into trust status, and the Secretary must specifically consider the impact on State and local governments of removal of the land from the tax rolls. This amendment is not necessary. This amendment violates our Constitution, our constitutional protection of Native Americans. This amendment is legislation on an appropriations bill. This amendment does an injustice to the poorest of the poor Americans in this country. This amendment certainly should be defeated, and I urge my colleagues to defeat it in the strongest possible terms.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Ehlers amendment because it is designed to gut the NEA. The National Association of State Arts Agencies, which is the organization that represents the State arts agencies that would get these block grants, is strongly opposed to the Ehlers amendment because they know that it will not help them provide quality programs to young people. These arts agencies benefit from NEA's experience and their leadership in creating partnerships with schools and universities across the country. They cannot do that on their own and certainly not with the small amount of money they would get from the Ehlers proposal. Think about this. Under the Ehlers proposal, each school board would get about $3,000, or $1 per child. That is not going to work. It is almost laughable. No wonder that they oppose it. Further, this amendment requires the Department of Education to create a new bureaucracy to administer the program. DOE does not have any competitive grant programs by subject area now. NEA has the staff expertise. DOE does not. Let us not pretend that a vote for the Ehlers amendment represents a commitment to arts in this country. These State art agencies rely upon Federal leadership and direct funding of national initiatives to attract private, corporate, and foundation support, especially from funders who can be encouraged to provide matching support. That is why the major corporations have already told us they will not fill this vacuum. But right now we are getting about $12 in nonfederal funding for every dollar that the NEA provides. That is what is working. It is seed money. It will not be seed money under this proposal. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment, because this amendment is not what the State art agencies want and it is certainly not what our country needs.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the National Endowment for the Humanities was established more than three decades ago because, in the words of the Columbus, OH, Dispatch, democracy demands wisdom and vision in its citizens. Now, the more responsible amendment that we should be debating today would be one that would restore the $40 million to this budget that was cut in this bill from the President's request or the $14 million cut from last year's funding level. That is what we should be doing, and we could have compelling arguments to do that and, I would think, win on that debate. But, instead, here we have to defend a program that has justified itself for 30 years, that has made a difference in almost every community across the country. In Alexandria, VA, right across the Potomac River, 150 years ago Alexandria was part of Washington, DC, but there was a vote to retrocede. Because the African-American citizens could not vote, that vote won, and Alexandria went on to become one of the principal slave capitals of the South. For the next 150 years there was a struggle that required the highest levels of courage and character and leadership on the part of our African-American citizens to transform our community and that of northern Virginia and the Washington metropolitan area. They had to risk beatings, they had to risk persecution and oppression when they would go in and integrate libraries, integrate the school system, the stores, the drugstores; and over a long history, they succeeded. Now, why is that relevant to this discussion? Because it is the National Endowment for the Humanities that is bringing that history alive to the children of our school system, black and white alike, and throughout the Washington metropolitan area. Now, it took years for the citizens of our community to meet the exacting standards of the National Endowment for the Humanities. But once they met them, then we were able to draw upon substantial sums of other money to make history come alive, to enable our schoolchildren to realize the strong shoulders on which they stand today. That is what inspires leadership, that is what keeps our country a great country, that understanding of history, that understanding of the kind of character and courage that gave us the foundation upon which we progress. NEH has proven itself in the same way that the principles of this country have proven themselves. But it is integral to sustaining our principles as a democratic free country that believes in free speech, that believes in education, that believes in inclusiveness of all of our citizens. NEH needs to be expanded, not cut back, but certainly the least we can do for our country and its people is to defeat this amendment today.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this rule needs to be defeated because if it passes, the National Endowment for the Arts and all the great work that it does will be defeated. During our hearing on the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, we heard from a young lady by the name of Denyce Graves. She grew up just a very few miles from here, right next to the Kennedy Center, but the Kennedy Center could have been a world away. She never had the money to go to the Kennedy Center. But because of an NEA grant, there was a community opera production that she went to when she was a teenager. She was inspired by it. She went on to devote her career to being an opera singer. She now plays Carmen at the Met. That may not seem important to the Members of this body, but I know it is important to millions of young families and children around the country who would like that similar opportunity and will not have that opportunity if it is only the elitist organizations that are funded. NEA works on behalf of the real people of America. Give their talent an opportunity to express itself. We are all richer because of it.