Jerry Moran

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to support additional trade measures important to the agriculture community. On Tuesday of this week, just several days ago, I outlined broad trade issues that need to be addressed for U.S. farmers and ranchers. These include opening new markets, using our existing trade tools, and removing damaging sanctions that penalize the American producer. Tonight I would like to cite a specific example of where our trade tools and policy should be used. The U.S. wheat gluten industry has a long-standing battle with the European Union regarding the EU's excessive subsidies and market-distorting trade barriers. After several devastating years after which European imports rose substantially, the gluten industry took their case to the International Trade Commission, claiming that there had been substantial damage to the industry as a result of subsidized imports. Following the presentation of evidence from both sides, the ITC ruled unanimously in favor of the U.S. gluten producers and recommended specific remedies that the U.S. should implement. These recommendations are now before President Clinton, who ultimately must decide whether or not to fight this fight for U.S. agriculture. The decision before the President regarding the implementation of these GATT legal remedies is important not only for the wheat gluten industry but for all of agriculture. When Members of Congress, when I am asked to decide how to vote on the fast track, on MFN, or other trade-related legislation, I need assurance, we need assurance that our current trade problems under existing agreements will be aggressively pursued by the administration. Mr. Speaker, I urge the President of the United States to act on behalf of American agriculture and to enforce the recommendations of the ITC for the wheat gluten industry.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ms. Mindy Baccus from Ada, Kansas on being named a National winner in the 1998 Voice of Democracy Scholarship Competition sponsored by the Veterans of Foreign Wars and its Ladies Auxiliary. Ms. Baccus is a senior at Minneapolis High School and hopes to pursue a career in communications or Law. She has been honored for her scholastic and extracurricular activities and exhibits outstanding leadership qualities. She has again distinguished herself by writing and orating the best patriotic script in Kansas entitled ``My Voice in Our Democracy'' for this nationwide competition. Her insight into the importance of each individual's role in our democracy and the eloquence with which she states her ideas, exemplifies the principles this country was founded upon. I am proud to announce that as a result of her hard work, Ms. Baccus has been awarded $3,500. The men and women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and its Ladies Auxiliary deserve recognition for their generous sponsorship of this scholarship program. I especially commend VFW Post 3201 and its Ladies Auxiliary in Minneapolis, Kansas for their local sponsorship. This year fifty-six young leaders from across the nation received scholarships totaling $128,500. I am proud that the VFW have honored Ms. Mindy Baccus with this year's award. I wish Ms. Baccus all the best in her chosen career path and in her studies at William Jewell College. ``My Voice in Our Democracy'' Ballots! Ballots! Get'em while they're hot! Here sir, have a ballot! What!? You don't want one! You're a US citizen 18 or over, aren't you? Well, then take a ballot. Oh, you think one person can't make a difference? What about you ma'am. You want one, right? After all, women fought for the right to vote for over a century. You'll take advantage of that privilege, won't you? What, you think your opinion doesn't matter. Well, you're wrong. You need to sit down and let me tell you about my voice in our democracy. In fact, all of you need to listen because anyone can have a voice in our democracy as long as they remember what voice truly stands for. My voice is vibrant, overcoming, insightful, confident, and educated. Never half-hearted, my voice is pulsing with life, energy, and vigor. No one can resist being drawn to my enthusiasm. Whether writing letters to public officials, discussing policy decisions with those around me, or encouraging my peers to become more active in government; I always convey my beliefs with energy and vitality. By doing so, I set an example that others are compelled to follow because everyone can see that I truly believe in what I'm saying. However, regardless of how vibrant my voice is, someone is usually waiting to stifle it. For that reason, my voice must be overcoming. I know that I must never let others make me compromise what I truly believe. Because so many policies in our society today are controversial, viewpoints often encounter strong opposition, but in order to be as close to a democracy as possible, many diverse opinions must be heard. Obviously, without a voice that's overcoming, having any voice in our democracy would be extremely difficult. Often, fully understanding a situation will help me overcome obstacles. As a result, I must be insightful. By looking deeply into a situation, I can find details which support my opinion and by pointing out aspects of an argument that others may have missed, I can gain more support for my view. Additionally, thoroughly exploring a policy helps me to make the right decision from the beginning. Soon, others will recognize me as a strong analyst and will gain more respect for my views, even if they don't agree with them. Although my peers may not agree with me, I will never stop believing in myself. That's why my voice must be confident. If I don't believe in myself, no one else will believe in me either. Regardless of the opposition I face or whether I feel like I'm alone in my views, I can never let myself feel defeated. As long as I know I am right and tenaciously defend my opinions, I will never be conquered. Even if I have to write a letter daily for years, make thousands of signs, or vote year after year for the same proposal, I will eventually make a difference as long as I believe in myself. Still, it's hard to be confident if I don't know about the issue. In order to have a strong voice in our democracy, I must be educated. First, without being informed, I cannot know enough about issues to find the position I want to fight for, and without fully understanding my views, I cannot adequately defend them. Finally, since affairs in a democracy are constantly changing, education can never stop; it must be ongoing. Overall, knowledge is power especially when it comes to democracy. Vibrant, overcoming, insightful, confident, and educated. Although the use of the acronym V.O.I.C.E. is clever, this actually is what voice truly stands for. I know my voice in our democracy embodies all of these traits and will as I continue to enter adulthood. Everyone has a voice in our democracy; they must simply learn to use it. One person can truly make a difference, and that one person could be me * * * or you. Ballots! Ballots! Get'em while they're hot. Here, would you like a ballot? Of course you would.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a serious problem facing the First District of Kansas and, indeed, all of rural America. Over the past 2 years, prices for wheat and other major agricultural commodities have been in a free-fall. Cash wheat today in Dodge City, Kansas, closed at $2.86 per bushel. That is almost $2 less per bushel than just 1 year ago and other commodities have experienced similar price declines. Soon the combines will start their annual trek north from the Great Plains of Texas to Canada. If current harvest projections hold true, a large U.S. wheat crop will put further downward pressure on already depressed prices. While there is no silver bullet, there are several important steps the President and Congress can take to improve the economic outlook for this Nation's farmers and ranchers. According to USDA, exports are predicted to be down at least $4 billion this year. This is a clear signal that Congress and the President must be aggressive in opening markets and promoting agricultural exports. We should start by using the tools we already have at our disposal. Since coming to Congress about a year and a half ago, I have communicated regularly with Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman on the importance of using the Export Enhancement Program for wheat and flour. While wheat flour and wheat exports have been seriously injured by European trade barriers and sizable foreign subsidies, under USDA's current plan wheat and flour will receive no assistance from EEP. I know Secretary Glickman cares deeply about the problems faced by Kansas wheat farmers, but I am concerned that he receives insufficient support from the Clinton administration in implementing policy changes that could assist agricultural producers. Recently Secretary Glickman announced the use of EEP to combat specific injurious trade barriers. While I support this action, I remain concerned that when the Europeans spent $7.7 billion on export subsidies, the United States only spent $56 million. This is an example of what we face. The European Community is spending almost $47 billion annually in 1997 in assistance and subsidies to agriculture. Of that, about $7.7 billion is in assistance and subsidies toward exports, while in the United States we spend only $5.3 billion annually, almost an 8-time difference we face as a disadvantage. And this line we cannot even see, this blue line, is what we spend in assisting agricultural exports in this United States for American agricultural producers. We may not be waving the white flag in defeat, but we are certainly far from putting up the necessary fight on behalf of the American farmer. This is not to say that all efforts have been in vain. This past year Secretary Glickman has been successful in increasing the GSM 102, export credit guarantee program, from $3 billion last year to almost $6 billion this year. This support has been beneficial but much more needs to be done. Market access for agricultural products must also be improved. Our farmers continue to suffer the consequences of foreign policy decisions that shut them out of markets around the world. It is time for these markets to be opened. Wheat imports to North Korea, Cuba, Iran and Iraq have all doubled since 1995 and now account for over 10 million tons of wheat. These growing markets are off-limits to U.S. producers but not to Canadians and not to Australian farmers. Our sanctions now wall off 11 percent of the world wheat market, a segment larger than the lost sales of the Soviet grain embargo several years ago. In today's global economy, unilateral sanctions by the U.S. unfairly penalize our producers, reward our competitors, and have little impact on changing behavior in the target country. The American farmer is tired of paying the price for failed U.S. foreign policy. Mr. Speaker, the last farm bill asked American farmers to take agriculture in a more market-oriented direction. But in order to have true market orientation, we need markets. The only way to improve prices on a long-term basis is to pursue aggressive, evenhanded trade initiatives. The decisions made here in Washington, D.C. have real world implications for agricultural producers. Now is the time to open markets, remove sanctions and aggressively promote agricultural exports to give our farmers a fighting chance. Mr. Speaker, it is time to trade.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to address an issue of critical importance to people of Kansas and really the entire country. Several provisions buried in last year's Medicare bill are decimating home health care providers in Kansas and jeopardizing access to critical health care services to the sick and elderly in rural America. Last year, in the effort to reduce spending, Congress made three crippling changes to Medicare reimbursement rates and regulations for home health care providers. First, the new interim payment system has slashed reimbursements to all agencies and is particularly discriminatory to agencies who have historically been the lowest cost, most efficient providers. Second, the unrealistic requirements that all agencies, regardless of size, obtain $50,000 surety bond has been devastating. These bonds are expensive for many agencies and generally unavailable in most parts of the country. Even the Small Business Administration has acknowledged that there are great difficulties that many small agencies are experiencing in obtaining these bonds. Finally, the loss of venipuncture reimbursement has added to the financial difficulties resulting in the closure of many agencies across the country, including Kansas. In our efforts to curtail fraud and wasteful spending, Congress went too far. Surely Congress did not intend to close down reputable and efficient providers of home health care services. In rural Kansas, health care is not just a quality of life issue. It is a matter of survival. A home health care agency in a rural community is often the sole provider of services, the critical link between hospitals and independent personal recovery. These agencies give seniors the opportunity to recover in their own homes with their own families and save the Medicare program costly hospital or nursing home stays following each illness or injury. Rural providers and their patients are especially hurt by cuts in payments due to the high cost of providing these services in a rural setting. These cuts threaten to leave seniors without adequate care and without independence of home care. I wholeheartedly support the goal of reforming Medicare. Unfortunately, the budget agreement penalized the very efficiency that Congress should be encouraging. Last year I was one of only a handful of Members to vote against the Medicare budget provisions, not because I opposed meaningful reforms in the Medicare program, but because, among other reasons, I opposed a payment system which rewarded waste and punished efficiency. I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in calling for an immediate review of the home health care provisions in the Balanced Budget Act and to take action necessary to remedy this crisis. Yesterday legislation was introduced in the Senate to limit the surety bond requirements to new agencies while strengthening protection and oversight for fraud, waste and abuse, and legislation has been introduced in both Houses to modify the interim payment system and provide needed relief for home health care providers. Mr. Speaker, these are the real reforms that the Medicare home health care program desperately needs. I urge my colleagues to reconsider this issue.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about an issue awfully important to Kansans and the American economy. Yesterday, the Washington Post contained a front-page story on oil prices hitting the lowest level in 10 years. And while to many of my colleagues this may sound like good news, I would like to take just a moment to remind everyone that there are, as usual, two sides to every story. For the Kansas oil industry, this recent drop in prices is devastating and could result in substantial job loss for the State's oil industry. Most important, however, is the potential loss in infrastructure for domestic oil production in the future. Kansas produces over 40 million barrels of oil, and the oil industry supports around 15,000 jobs in our State. Historically, Kansas has produced almost 6 billion barrels of oil to fuel our domestic economy. But with the recent drop in prices of crude from about $16 a barrel to about $10.75, this industry is in danger. For Kansas, it is a simple proposition that it is not just the reduction in price but this means we are plugging wells that rarely are put back into production. Our dependence in this country on imported oil continues to grow. According to the Department of Energy, crude oil imports were over 7.7 million barrels a day in the last 4 weeks. This has a tremendous impact on our balance of trade. And we must keep in mind that imported oil comes at a significant price. The United States spends over $250 billion annually for the Department of Defense, with a large amount of those resources devoted to the Middle East. I am certainly a strong supporter of our Armed Forces and recognize the value of defense spending. However, when we are spending billions of dollars in defense money to protect imported oil, we might question what we are doing to protect the basic infrastructure of our domestic oil supply. At this time, it is clear that, while we will protect our international suppliers, we do little to protect or even to promote our domestic oil production. Mr. Speaker, the oil and gas industry has long been an important and fundamental sector of the economy of the United States. It is time that we in this Congress recognize that this industry is important and we work to ensure its survival for the future.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today in honoring the memory of former Kansas Congressman Garner Shriver who was sadly taken from us this week. Garner Shriver will always be remembered as one of Kansas' most effective and revered public servants. Garner served his country as an enlisted man and as an officer in the U.S. Navy during World War II. Upon his return, he served 12 years in the Kansas Legislature and was later elected to serve 8 consecutive terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. Here in the House of Representatives he quickly became known as a tireless advocate for our nation's veterans and as a thorough legislator who made sure Kansas was never overlooked in needed federal appropriations. A quiet, thoughtful man, Garner viewed his public service as a Christian duty. In the process, he achieved great legislative successes benefiting both our nation and his home state of Kansas. Garner Shriver was a skilled political leader who helped shape the attitudes of an entire generation of young Kansans. It is to his credit, that those of us who have gathered here today on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives to pay tribute to him were among them. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his wife, Martha Jane, and their three children, Kay, David, and Linda. Garner Shriver has left a void that will surely be hard to fill.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, Veterans Day, millions of Americans were afforded the opportunity to remember and express our sincere gratitude to those who have served in defense of our Nation. It was a day to honor great sacrifices, celebrate heroic victories, and to renew their commitments to our Nation's Veterans. ``With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.'' These words are taken from President Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address and sadly read again just two months later over its author's grave. The excerpt ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan,'' now lays etched in stone on the plaque of the Veterans Administration building in Washington reminding us of the debt we owe to those who have defended our land in times of both war and peace. On Veterans Day we honor those individuals who set their own aspirations aside to serve their country in defense of freedom and liberty. Our duty is not only to ensure that wreaths are placed on the graves of those who paid the ultimate sacrifice, nor is it only to fly our nation's flag in honor and support of current service members; it is our duty to care for the soldier and his dependents who continue to bear the effects of battle. In our history, more than one million American men and women have died in defense of our nation. If these now-silent patriot's have taught us anything, it is that because of the men and women who were willing to sacrifice their last blood and breath, the United States remains a symbol of freedom and a country whose ideas are still worth defending. Veterans Day is a day of national respect. We should not forget those who have allowed us to enjoy that which we have today. More than ever, we must rededicate ourselves to honor the lives and memory of those who served, fought, and often died. How might we best recognized these American heroes? We should pause to give them thanks for safeguarding our liberties. We should pledge to carry out the civic responsibilities of citizens living in a free country. And we should exercise those loyalties by demonstrating our respect for both our living Veterans and those in their final resting places. It is so little to ask of us when they have given so much. Veterans are the unsung heroes who define our American heritage, ordinary citizens who did their duty. And to those who have fallen, let us remember that freedom is never free and that we can never adequately express our thanks to those who could not return to us.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to Dr. Dan Rupp, a distinguished citizen from my home town of Hays, KS. Dr. Rupp has displayed a serious commitment to the welfare of his local community, spending his entire adult life in public service and education. Dr. Rupp has been a member of the Hays City Commission for 24 years and served as mayor for six terms. Dr. Rupp is the longest serving commissioner in the history of the city of Hays, KS, but his active role in the community goes beyond service in local government. His career in higher education as a college professor commenced immediately after he graduated from college. Most of that career was spent as an economics professor at Fort Hays State University. Dr. Rupp also leads a life of volunteerism. He has been a part of many community service projects over the years, including serving as the president of the Volga German Association from 1974 through the present and as a long time member of the Ellis County Historical Society. He was recently recognized for his activity in the local senior companion program, a service he has been involved in since its inception in 1974. Dr. Rupp and his family are also active members of St. Joseph's Catholic Church. Earlier this year Dr. Rupp was diagnosed with a cancerous lung tumor. He is one of the 1 percent of people with lung cancer who are nonsmokers. Since his diagnosis, he has undergone radiation treatment for his disease. Dr. Rupp is not fighting this disease alone. He has a wonderful, supportive wife and two daughters with him every step of the way, as well as the town of Hays, a community of people who have come to know him well over the years. While Dr. Rupp decided to not seek reelection to the city commission in 1996, his service to the community has continued. This summer he taught graduate courses and volunteered as a city tour guide, all of this while undergoing his cancer treatment. He has continued to be positive, active, and upbeat. At 61 years old, Dr. Rupp continues as a role model for others in our community, a dedicated educator who has inspired his many students, and one who knows the supreme importance of family. I join the people of Hays, KS hoping and praying for Dan's healthy and speedy recovery.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, this week Congress made an important, bipartisan statement on behalf of American taxpayers. I supported H.R. 2676 because my constituents know that the Internal Revenue Service needs restructuring and reforming. They tell me stories about assigning an employee to try for 5 hours to get an IRS agent on the telephone, and about wading through multiple notices of deficiency, none of which explain the supposed problem or include the name of an agent who could do so. Stories such as those led me to introduce H.R. 2598, the IRS Customer Service Improvement Act, last month. All of my fellow Members of Congress who voted for H.R. 2676 earlier this week should consider signing on to my bill as well, because they have much in common. Both bills are aimed at changing the attitude the IRS takes toward taxpayers. Taxpayers should be the customers of the IRS, not its targets. Most Americans want to follow the law and pay their taxes correctly and should not be considered de facto lawbreakers. Both bills also recognize that Government owes more than just a little respect to the people who have given it the authority to exist. Under our sprawling Tax Code, the IRS has an important role, but that is no excuse for institutional arrogance. However, the bill we passed this week has more in common with my legislation than spirit and theme. The provision regarding equalizing the interest rates for overlapping underpayments and overpayments, for example, is similar to section 3 of the IRS Customers Service Improvement Act, which would make the interest rate equal in all cases. The IRS Customer Service Improvement Act also would require the IRS to implement a plan to have all calls to service numbers answered by IRS employees--not machines--in a timely manner; require all IRS letters and notices to be signed by an IRS agent; require the IRS to notify you of mathematical or clerical errors within 6 months; require the IRS to forgive interest and penalties on mathematical and clerical errors if you pay within 60 days of timely notification; establish a 1- year period of limitation for the IRS to assess additional taxes on returns legally filed by individual taxpayers in all but the highest tax bracket; and make the electronic filing of depository taxes voluntary for small businesses. While I look forward to the next phase of debate, the possible overhaul of our complex and flawed Tax Code, these provisions will add to the drive to change the nature of the IRS while we still have it. After all, Mr. Speaker, it is called the Internal Revenue Service--and it is service that American taxpayers deserve.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, with Thanksgiving around the corner and this session hopefully coming soon to an end, it is probably useful to remind ourselves that unfortunately we often take the freedoms we have been granted and enjoy in this country for granted. In the United States we do not have to worry about being arrested just for going to church. No one tries to stop us from praying in our own homes. In this country you might get into an argument with your neighbor over the relationship between church and State, but he or she does not kidnap your children, brainwash them and sell them into slavery just to punish you for your faith. But that is a scenario that is not alien to Christians in the Sudan, where in the course of civil war and a campaign of terror millions of Sudanese Christians have been killed or displaced, and they are not alone. It has been estimated that more Christians have died for their faith in the 20th century than in the previous 19 centuries combined. The Roman emperors at their worst could not have imagined the magnitude of persecution that goes on today. That is not to say that Christians are the only victims of religious persecution in today's world. Far from it. But what I find disturbing is the complacent and even dismissive reaction that many Americans have to the plight of those persecuted because of their Christian faith. It is as if we believe Christianity enjoys a comfortable station over the world, that it is universally embraced by the establishment, but Christianity is a threat to the status quo. In the Sudan, China, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam and many other countries, the establishment knows that. In those countries, the establishment does not embrace Christianity, it intends to crush it. Whether targeting individual Christians or enforcing sweeping laws banning all forms of Christian expression, these regimes share a common goal and a common crime, the violation of a fundamental, God-given human right. In Saudi Arabia it is illegal to wear a cross or even to pray privately in homes. Preaching the gospel to Muslims in Iran is punishable by death, and so is the act of conversion. In China, where Protestants and Catholics have been named principal threats to stability, earlier this year 100 church leaders were arrested in just 3 months. In Cuba, the arrest of a Pentecostal pastor last year led to Castro's government ordering the closing of all of the country's home churches, estimated at as many as 10,000. In Pakistan, Christians can be accused of blasphemy, a capital offense. In Uzbekistan, Christians have been warned that they will forfeit their registration if they evangelize. In Vietnam, where many restrictions on Christians were lifted earlier this decade, the Communist Party government has slid backward to repressive policies, including arrest, imprisonment and so-called reeducation. No matter how thankful we may be for our freedoms, we must not be lulled into complacency about the situation faced by so many Christians and others persecuted for their religious practices and convictions. As a nation that has become powerful in large part because we jealously guard our individual freedoms, we have a responsibility to project the ideals of freedom around the globe. The responsibility belongs to individuals and advocacy groups, to businesses and to churches, but it also belongs to this our Government. While we have taken steps to recognize all religious persecution as a serious problem and to monitor its prevalence, we need to take the next step and develop clear-cut, specific responses to persecution once it is identified. The solution may not be readily apparent but the crisis demands our full attention.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, nothing better symbolizes the heritage of the Western United States than cattle grazing on the open range, and with over 6.5 million cattle on farms and ranches, the Big First District has more cattle than any other congressional district. The cattle rancher still stands as a picture of the American independence, battling long odds and mother nature and enjoying the rewards of a hard day's work. This heritage is why the bill before us is so important. To say that the life of the rancher is filled with uncertainties is an understatement. Just this past week in Western Kansas, we had our first blizzard of the season. For some cattlemen, it was devastating. One rancher north of Dodge City lost 200 out of a herd of 242 yearlings. Across the State, cattle losses are estimated at nearly 20,000 head. As Members of Congress, we cannot change the weather and we cannot control the markets, but we can and should provide stability in the terms and rates for ranchers grazing on Federal land. The bill before this chamber does just that--guarantee that Federal grazing lands are managed in a way that will ensure their healthy existence for generations to come. This legislation will assist the American rancher do what he or she does best, feed the world, and it does so in a way that helps preserve the family farm and ranch. The Forage Improvement Act is good policy for the rancher, the taxpayer, and important for the long-term health of this Nation's grazing lands. In addition, this bill represents the right way to develop policy through consensus and bipartisan work, not through administrative fiat. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this important measure.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] for yielding me the time. I rise in support of this rule. The Committee on Rules yesterday considered a number of amendments to the District of Columbia Appropriations Act. There was an amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], who had been the chair of this D.C. Appropriations Act that would have struck the vouchers provision. He made an eloquent argument in the full Committee on Appropriations against that provision. There was an amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] that limited the application of the bill's voucher provision to only schools located within the District of Columbia. There was an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] to correct the provisions that condition funding for the University of the District of Columbia School of Law. And they are receiving accreditation next year by the American Bar Association. There was an amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] to strike the provisions in the bill that reopen Pennsylvania Avenue. There was an amendment that I sought to offer that would have struck a number of provisions through which the Committee on Appropriations was attempting to micromanage the District of Columbia government, and particularly micromanaging its financial management system, which is essential to getting the D.C. government back on its feet. But none of these amendments were made in order. Yet, this is a fair rule because it has made in order a substitute amendment that we will offer. This substitute amendment will strike all of the provisions included in the House version of the D.C. Appropriations Act except the provisions that grant a pay raise to public safety employees. In its place, my amendment will substitute the version of the D.C. Appropriations Act that was drafted by the, may I say, conservative Republican Senator from North Carolina, and it was approved by a nearly unanimous Senate Committee on Appropriations and passed out of the other body last night. That is what we want to do. It incorporates the consensus budget from the Control Board, the Mayor, D.C. City Council. We think that is the way to go. It leaves these kinds of legislative decisions to the legislative committee. This is a fair rule because this substitute amendment incorporates all the amendments that Democrats and Republicans sought to offer in the Committee on Rules. The substitute will strike provisions in the bill that give a sole- source contract for the District's financial management system to a vendor that has not even bid for it. The vendor does not want it, and yet it would insist that they take it and take it away from a vendor that, in fact, was approved and has the capability and qualifications to carry out the financial management system that the city desperately needs. It will strike the provisions of the bill that prohibit private companies from operating helicopter tours over the Nation's Capitol. Maybe this is a good idea, but it is not up to us to make those kinds of decisions. It will ensure that no vouchers are made for the schools outside of the District of Columbia. In fact, it will ensure that no voucher provision is enacted, because this is a poison pill, it is a killer amendment. If it is included, the bill will be vetoed. My substitute amendment will ensure that the budget submitted by the District's governing bodies, the governing bodies that Congress set up in terms of the Financial Control Board, a budget that is balanced 1 year earlier than required, just exactly what we asked them to do, a budget that reduces the District's operating deficit by two-thirds, and it cuts spending from last year. That bill deserves to be signed into law. If this substitute amendment is approved, that bill will be signed into law. This is a modified closed rule that does limit debate and it limits our freedom to offer amendments, yet it is a fair rule. It allows Members to make a fundamental choice as to whether they are going to allow the District's government and the congressionally created budget process to work or whether they are going to continue to try to micromanage the District of Columbia and make this, the smallest of the 13 appropriations bills, one of the most controversial and contentious. I support the rule, and I support the substitute that I will be offering pursuant to it. I hope every Member will join me in supporting this rule and in supporting my substitute amendment and, in fact, reaffirming the very concept that the other side has been urging, de- evolution: Give power back to the people at the local level. Let them make the decisions that they are entitled to make under a democratic process. I urge my colleagues very strongly not only to support this rule, but to support the amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, my constituents continually remind me of their frustration with the IRS. Not all the problems taxpayers have with the IRS are making headlines. The kinds of problems my constituents tell me about are less spectacular but no less frustrating. Oliver Wendell Holmes famed the quote, ``Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society,'' but in my opinion, this does not justify the government's collection of taxes in an uncivilized manner. I have introduced the IRS Customer Service Improvement Act. I have supported the IRS Customer Service Improvement Act legislation addressing numerous taxpayer complaints in dealing with what most Americans consider to be one of the most onerous of all Federal agencies. For example, I recently spoke with a CPA in Kansas who told me of his many experiences with the IRS. One of his greatest frustrations has always been the ability to reach anyone at the IRS when he had a question he needed answered. Recently, in an attempt to get some simple information, he was forced to assign an employee to staff a phone and wait to connect with an IRS agent. Well, patient paid off Mr. Speaker, and they finally did get through--5 hours later. This is just one example but it is simply unacceptable--and the list goes on. The IRS Customer Service Improvement Act addresses seven areas of taxpayer concern. First, it would require the IRS to implement a plan to have all phone calls answered promptly by IRS employees, not machines or voice mail mazes. Second, the bill would require all letters and notices mailed out by the IRS to be signed by an IRS employee. Too often notices are mailed out, sometimes in error, to taxpayers who then have to sort out what their mistake was and what they need to do about it. I hear this complaint repeatedly. And while we expect taxpayers to be accountable; IRS agents should be as well. Third, the bill would equalize the interest rate you pay the IRS for underpayments, making it equal to the interest that the IRS owes from you for overpayments. Currently, the IRS holds an unfair advantage. Fourth, one of the really discouraging revelations of the oversight hearings has been the IRS's preference for targeting taxpayers who do not have the resources to defend themselves from audits. The IRS Customer Service Improvement Act would address these injustices by shortening the period of limitations the IRS must meet to assess additional taxes on returns filed by middle-and low-income taxpayers. Current limitations allow the IRS to find errors on three- year-old returns that can snowball into 3 years' worth of penalties and interest for people who cannot afford to fight. The new limitation would not apply to fraudulent returns, so those who do, in fact, cheat would not be protected. Fifth, simple mathematical and clerical errors should not lead to large, unexpected penalties. This bill would require the IRS to notify taxpayers of mathematical or clerical errors in their returns within 6 months. Late notice would cancel penalty and interest. Six, taxpayers would have the opportunity to correct their errors quickly, within 60 days, without facing penalties. Most Americans are more than willing to make good on simple mistakes if given the opportunity. Seventh, the bill would include a provision that makes electronic filing of taxes voluntary for small business. [The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 included a 1-year delay in the enforcement of mandatory electronic filing, but this provision, like the bill sponsored by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings], makes the exemption permanent.] Make no mistake, this legislation is certainly not a substitute for full-scale, long-term tax reform, which should be the goal of this body. If these provisions are successful in making the IRS more accessible and fair, it still would not change the fact that the U.S. Tax Code is far too complex and takes too much money out of the hands of working families. Until the day that wholesale tax reform is in place, the American people will be forced to continue to deal with the IRS every day. With this bill we can help level the playing field for taxpayers, while making the IRS more accountable and accessible. if you want to remind the IRS what the ``S'' in its name stands for, please join me in supporting this bill. I would now like to further elaborate on how our tax code in all its complexity, negatively weaves its way into all our lives. While acknowledging the fact that we must have some capability of collecting taxes, we must pursue avenues by which we do so more efficiently and accurately. Further we must leave behind what is perceived as a cold, heartless bureaucracy that cares little of the frustration and devastation it places upon those the IRS purports to serve: the American Taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I quote, ``The purpose of the Internal Revenue Service is to collect the proper amount of tax revenue at the least amount of cost, serve the public by continually improving the quality of our products and services; and perform in a manner warranting the highest degree of public confidence in our integrity, efficiency, and fairness.'' Does this statement accurately reflect your view of the IRS? If you are like most Americans, probably not. However, this is the actual mission statement that guides the IRS in serving the American people. With businesses throughout our Nation constantly reevaluating and retooling their efforts in improving customer services, too often our Federal Government remains unresponsive and behind the curve in serving its clients--the American taxpayers. Nowhere in government is this more frustrating or directly touches more lives than when dealing with the IRS. Recently this Congress passed some healthy tax relief. In general, my constituents viewed this very positively. However, they also expressed justifiable criticism that the tax relief provisions that were passed further complicated an already complex Tax Code. And while I agree, we must observe that this is the absurdity of the present tax code: to even cut taxes we must complicate the tax code further. Mr. Speaker, let us look at some notable statistics involving the Internal Revenue Service: The IRS is twice as big as the CIA and five times the size of the FBI, with over 100,000 employees who control more information about individual Americans than any other agency. Currently there are 480 separate IRS tax forms. Over 10 million correction notices are sent out each year. Small businesses spend $4 dollars in compliance for every $1 dollar they actually pay in taxes to the IRS. Individuals and businesses spend at least 5.4 billion hours a year figuring out their taxes, more man-hours than we spend building every car, truck, and airplane manufactured in America. It is estimated that we spend between $200 and $300 billion each year paying others to complete their complex tax forms for them. According to the IRS, in 1995, 2.1 million tax returns were audited at a cost to the IRS of nearly $1 billion dollars. The IRS has spent $4 billion dollars on upgrading its computer system that it now admits doesn't work. According to a recent General Accounting Office report that the IRS could not account for $216 billion in delinquent taxes in 1996. Other comprehensive GAO audits have shown consistently that the IRS cannot even balance its own financial books. Again, the agency charged with the collection and accounting of the nation's tax revenues has consistently failed to balance its own books. Mr. Speaker, this is a pretty sad commentary on the current state of the IRS. We now have a unique opportunity, and in fact an obligation, to begin a serious national debate on how best to fundamentally reform our Nation's broken tax system. It is a system where we spend simply too much time filling out too much paperwork to send too much money to Washington. Under the current tax code the Federal Government simply has too much power and control over peoples' lives. Since the income tax was first established, politicians have talked about reforming, fixing, or replacing the system, only to end up making it more unfair, more complex, and more intrusive. The New York Times, in a 1909 editorial opposing the very first income tax, predicted, ``When men get in the habit of helping themselves to the property of others, they cannot easily be cured of it.'' Eighty-eight years later, this prediction has proven disturbingly true. For the time being, however, let us implement the reforms included in the IRS Customer Service Improvement Act as we move toward further discussions over replacing the current Tax Code.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding this time to me. I apologize for being a few minutes late, but I rise today to join my colleagues in seeking to honor former Senator and Majority Leader Bob Dole by renaming the Federal Court House located in Kansas City, KS the Robert J. Dole United States Courthouse. I am extremely pleased to have the opportunity to officially recognize and pay tribute to my fellow Kansan. Growing up in western Kansas, I like so many others viewed Bob Dole as more than just a war hero, which he truly was, more than an able statesman which also he truly was, and more than an articulate voice for the disabled and veterans, which he truly was. To me he is someone who exemplifies the heritage of Kansas, hard-working, determined and having the ability to overcome great adversity. Like our State's motto which means ``to the stars through difficulty,'' Bob Dole rose to be one of the most distinguished figures of this century and did so while overcoming tremendous obstacles. His ascendancy to greatness began from his family's humble beginnings in Russell, KS, to the war-ravaged mountains of northern Italy and ultimately to serve as majority leader of the United States. As a young man Bob Dole was a athlete and scholar, and like so many of his generation, went off without hesitation to defend his country. On a snow-covered mountain in northern Italy he suffered near fatal wounds. Later, after a difficult and prolonged recovery, he returned to Kansas to finish his education utilizing the GI bill and embarked upon a public career we pay tribute to here today. Bob Dole's appreciation for his boyhood community and the State of Kansas is without question. As a reminder of where he came from and what shaped his character throughout his career, he kept a cigar box on his desk containing receipts of various contributions made by his neighbors and friends to help pay for his difficult recovery after the war. Those receipts might have been for a dollar, 5 cents, 15 cents, it did not matter. Collectively they not only aided his rehabilitation, but they helped to find his sense of purpose and determination to give back to a community that had given so much to him. Many people have told me how years ago they would pass the Russell County Courthouse late at night and notice the second floor light on. It was the light of the young county prosecutor named Bob Dole. Though his injuries from the war required him to spend long, additional hours at work, he never complained and continued to work tirelessly. Later he went on to serve Kansas's First Congressional District, which I am honored to serve, and then in the U.S. Senate. Senator Dole set an example while in both the House and Senate. It is his legacy that I must now attempt to follow. Culminating his distinguished career in public service, Bob Dole was nominated by my party as the Presidential candidate for the 1996 election. In achieving all of his great accomplishments, Bob Dole served with character, candor, and a cunning wit that cannot be matched. Mr. Speaker, renaming this Federal Court House as the Robert J. Dole United States Courthouse is a simple tribute to a great man and reflects our Nation's admiration and appreciation for his service. Kansans especially appreciate Senator Dole's dedication to them. His service will long be remembered.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's yielding me this time. This Medicare provision is a typical Government one-size-fits-all solution to a problem that we do not have in rural America. In Kansas, we have too few physicians, not too many. Rural communities have access to one-half the physicians of those who live in urban areas, and in fact, as our Nation as a whole has. Of the 66 counties in the First Congressional District of Kansas, two-thirds of those have been designated as medically underserved. I work hard almost every week to try to assist communities and hospitals in obtaining foreign-trained physicians in order to try to satisfy these needs. Thirty-five foreign-trained physicians have been admitted and are practicing in the First District in Kansas under this J-1 visa program. We have another dozen applicants pending to fill a very desperate need. What we should be doing instead of utilizing money not to train physicians, we should be paying hospitals and physicians to train physicians who will then fulfill these needs in rural and other underserved areas of the country. We should support physicians who are willing to serve in those communities, and we also should assist in keeping them there once they have been trained and are willing to serve the needs of rural and other underserved areas of the country. Mr. Chairman, in rural Kansas, this is not a quality-of-life issue, this is a survival issue.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, 10 years ago, when I was mayor of the city of Alexandria, which is just across the Potomac River from us, perhaps the toughest thing that I had to do was to establish a family planning clinic for teenagers. I say I felt I had to because of the intolerably high incidence of teenage pregnancies and abortions and sexually transmitted diseases. So we availed ourselves of all of the data. We talked with the students and parents at length. We had this very same debate that we are having today, except that it lasted a year. Mr. Chairman, we came to the conclusion that if we required parental notification, we might as well save our time and effort and money, because the students were not going to use it. Now, let me say, frankly, it has not been a panacea. We still have nearly 50 percent of the older teenagers who have had sexual intercourse at least once. The national figure is about 40 percent. But what it has done is to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies. It has reduced the number of abortions. It has reduced the number of sexually transmitted diseases. It has improved the health of our student body. And although the information is only anecdotal, from talking with the parents, I know that there are far more parents who are communicating with their teenagers because of the existence of that family planning clinic, because the first thing they suggest is abstinence, and then the second thing they urge is to talk with their parents. It is working. That is what family planning clinics all over the country do. One of the statistics that we have to bear in mind, and it was the case in Alexandria, is that nearly 90 percent of the teenagers that go to these family planning clinics are already sexually active. So we are not talking about encouraging any sexual licentiousness. What we are talking about is being responsible, doing what is in the best interest of our young people. Support the Porter-Castle amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the distinguished career of Norman W. Jeter of Hays, KS. Mr. Jeter came to Ellis County 60 years ago after graduating from the University of Kansas Law School. He was elected Ellis County attorney in 1938 and established his own law practice in Hays. Later, he was a member of the Hays school board and chairman of the Kansas Board of Regents. The Jeter Law Firm grew with the county. Over the years, Mr. Jeter represented banking, oil, and agricultural interests as he saw them become the State's premier industries. The firm itself, to which Mr. Jeter's two sons Joe and Bill now belong, has produced a justice on the Kansas Supreme Court and this U.S. Congressman. At the age of 85, Norman Jeter is the Cal Ripken of the Kansas legal profession. He still puts in at least 5 hours a day and is often the first person in the office. His dedication to his profession and his knowledge of the law are respected throughout the State of Kansas. He is the kind of elder statesman that every community needs and all too often lacks. In June, Mr. Jeter received the Distinguished Alumnus Award from his colleagues in the KU Law Society, a fitting tribute to the successful career of an extraordinary man. When Norman Jeter boarded a train to Hays, KS, in the midst of the Great Depression, he came on the hope that Hays would be a great town someday. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, Hays grew into a thriving community, the home of an excellent State university and the commercial center of northwest Kansas. Along the way, Hays residents benefited from the sage advise of Mr. Jeter. Norman Jeter is proof that the practice of the law can still be an honorable profession and that service to one's community can still make a difference. I would ask that my colleagues join me today in paying tribute to Norman Jeter and his 60 years of service to the people of the First District.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce legislation regarding Rails to Trails. This legislation makes what I believe are common-sense changes to the current Rails to Trails Program. Under this bill, local communities could actively participate in deciding whether or not to convert an abandoned rail line into a trail. This legislation simply states that local government officials must approve a rails to trails decision before a line is designated for a trail use. Under the current program, only the Surface Transportation Board decides whether to approve a rail to trail conversion. Like many Federal laws and programs, Rails to Trails is top-heavy and the decision-making is done in Washington, DC. Unfortunately, people who live in Washington, DC, do not always understand what the communities in Kansas desire. We need more local control and decision- making to insure that the needs of local communities and property owners are considered. Mr. Speaker, I urge my fellow Members of Congress to support this legislation and allow local communities to participate in the Rails to Trails process.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record a letter from one of my constituents, Alan E. States of Hays, KS, which was recently published in USA Today. Mr. States lays out precisely what is wrong with a Tax Code that discourages entrepreneurship and savings. He writes, Twenty-five years ago, I purchased 80 acres of Kansas farmland for $10,000. The money came from my savings while in Vietnam, which, along with my Chevy, constituted my entire net worth. I was just glad to be alive, home again and ready to live the American dream. I used the 80 acres as a down payment on 400 additional acres and proceeded to build my own farm. I've been successful and now farm more than 4,000 acres. Much of it is rented. Now I have another business opportunity. I considered selling the farmland to raise the investment money. I could sell the 80 acres for $40,000. The federal capital gains tax would come to $8,400. The problem is that because of inflation since I purchased the land, my true basis on the land is $37,000. So my real gain on the sale is only $3,000. Therefore, the $8,400 tax represents a 280% tax on my actual gain. Is this what has become of the American dream? This is the system the President proposes we keep. The tax code makes no sense. Income and estate taxes for too long have tried to redistribute wealth. It hasn't worked. The code should have the sole purpose of raising revenue. If we are to tax income, it should be fair. To be fair, it must do four things: Tax all income; tax it the same without regard to source; tax it only once; and tax it only if it is real and not the result of inflation. What will I do under the current system? I certainly won't sell the land. I will borrow against it. I can borrow the land at 8.5%. I can deduct the interest as a business expense, reducing my rate to 5.2%. From that, I adjust for 3% inflation, and my effective rate of borrowing the money is only 2.2%. the tax code discourages savings and encourages debt. Rather than the Treasury making $1,200 on the sale of the asset, it now loses $1,300 because of my interest expense. Do some people really say we can't have tax reform because it will cost the Treasury too much? Alan States, Hays, KS. Mr. Speaker, the real tragedy is that stories such as this can be told by countless Americans struggling to build a better life for themselves and their children. To those who deride the Republican tax bill, I would challenge you to explain to Mr. States how a Tax Code that stifles investment, discourages savings, and destroys the American dream should not be reformed. I cannot give such an explanation. That is why I insist on meaningful reductions in capital gains tax rates.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Missouri yielding time to me. I did not necessarily know what I was going to speak about tonight, but I can certainly join in the remarks of the gentleman from New Jersey, because estate taxes are clearly a problem in our economy. As I have listened over the last 6 months as a new Member of Congress, as I listened in 6 months of campaigning for this office to the people who live in the 66 counties of the western three-fourths of the State of Kansas, taxes are at the top of the list. They are at the top of the list because we have sapped the possibility of growing this economy, of creating new jobs, of creating a family lifestyle that is conducive to mom and dad both being at home. So much of our effort as parents now goes into making ends meet, and so tomorrow when we debate and vote and hopefully pass a significant tax reduction, this may be the vote on the House floor that in the 6 months that I have served in this Congress may actually cause me to feel the best about my voting, because it is so important to us. It is so important to America, to its families, to its individuals, to our workers, to our business, to send a message that we hear loud and clear what the tax and regulatory environment created by Washington, D.C. does to America. The death tax that the gentleman from New Jersey mentions is a perfect example. It destroys the hope, the hope of many American small business men and women, the hope of the family farmer, to pass on that farm or that small business to the next generation. It destroys the hope that the next generation can continue to earn a living, particularly in rural America. My district is composed of people just like that, people whose incomes are not very high, but who have worked hard to develop each and every business and farm into as successful an operation as it can be, and to develop and to create wealth for the next generation. Where I come from people are not knocking on our doors to take over that family business or that family farm. They are hoping that they can scrimp and save and create enough wealth that the next generation, that son or that daughter, has the opportunity to continue that farming operation or that small business, and unfortunately for Kansans and for Americans, for farmers and small business men and women, the death tax makes that very difficult. Mr. Speaker, I did not realize until I got to Congress that the death tax raises only 1 percent of the Federal revenue. For all the havoc it creates on businessmen and women, on families, and on farmers, it is amazing to me that it only generates 1 percent. We go through so much pain and agony for $16 billion. I come from Kansas, where $16 billion is still a heck of a lot of money, but in the overall scheme of this Federal budget we have created a nightmare for next to nothing. Worse than that, 65 percent, Mr. Speaker, of every dollar that we raise in estate taxes goes to collect and enforce the tax. In fact, the Small Business Administration in 1992 actually estimated that 75 cents of every dollar collected went to collect and enforce the tax. What a crazy system, that would suggest we are going to spend 75 cents to collect $1. This tax really does need to be abolished. I know tomorrow we do not accomplish that, we do not accomplish everything we want in this regard, but it is a step in the right direction. Who would think that we would be talking about reducing taxes? As I sat at home in Kansas and watched Congress over the last decade, we have talked about tax reductions year after year after year, we have talked about capital gains tax rate reductions, and increasing the exclusion for estate tax. We have talked and we have talked and we have talked. Now, for the first time in 16 years, we actually have the possibility of making a difference, and it will be more than talk hopefully after tomorrow. This tax is so deadly, it kills business. Seventy percent of all family businesses do not survive the second generation. Eighty-seven percent of all businesses, small businesses, are not passed on to the third generation. Clearly, the $600,000 exemption is outdated. That exemption has been in place for 10 years, since 1987. If it was indexed for inflation, we would be talking about an exemption of $840,000. This tax is bad for business. Sixty percent of businesses say they would add jobs in the coming year if it were not for the death tax. The economy would be $11 billion more productive without death taxes, according to the Heritage Foundation. And unfortunately this tax is good for attorneys and accountants. We certainly want them to have success in their businesses as well but think of the amount of resources and energy that goes into trying to avoid this tax. We spend almost $11,200 on the average, people do, in order to avoid this death tax by estate planning. So people who have access to professionals, people who plan their affairs, they fare better perhaps, having spent all that money to succeed. But think of all the people who do not know that is an option. Think of how inefficient it is that we spend money. So many people in this country do not have the opportunity to do what they know is right for them, for their personal finances, for their business success because they have to worry about estate taxes. We need to get a tax system, we need to eliminate taxes that create so many impediments to people just doing what they know in commonsense everyday judgment would be good for them, their families and their businesses. Forty-three percent of death taxes are paid on estates that are less than a million dollars. This is not a tax reduction that benefits the wealthy. And like the gentleman from New Jersey, I selected at random comments from my constituents. These are not people who are paid lobbyists who presumably sit outside the door and tell us how to vote on tax issues. These are people from home who face every day problems in trying to make ends meet and trying to pass on assets to the next generation, to their own sons and daughters. Many of them are farmers, many of them are small businesses. Dear Jerry. This is a letter to the President, Mr. President, consider that 2,000 acres of farm ground in our family farm is worth about $500 an acre. You add in equipment and cattle, you are already up to a million dollars. After talking to a couple of implement dealers, they discovered that in 1986, a combine cost $139,000. Today it costs $14,000. A tractor that went for $45,000 just about 10 years ago is now $105,000. Take into account all those things and how do you save enough money to pay the estate tax upon your death? The answer is, it cannot be done and, therefore, the land, the cattle and the equipment will be sold in order to pay the taxes, leaving my son, my daughter, without the opportunity to continue in what already is a very difficult and risky business. These people say, since the time that the $600,000 exemption was put into place, the costs to get in and stay in the farm business have greatly increased. This makes it very difficult for a father who wants to let his son continue the family farm after his death to leave him enough land, machinery and capital to continue to operate. We have watched young farmers have to sell their land to pay the taxes after their fathers die and not have enough money for a viable farming operation. This person understands that the tax only raised 1 percent of Federal revenue. One percent of tax revenue flowing into the Treasury causes more trouble and grief to family business owner survivors than it is worth. Amen. That is true. The tax remains a burden on the family for years after death. Many farms have enough difficulties managing the loss of the primary owner, and then to have to pay taxes at a marginal rate of 55 percent, which when this tax was started the marginal rate, the highest rate was only 10 percent, today it is 55 percent, this violates the fundamentals of capitalism on which this country was founded. With three generations actively farming, the repeal of the estate tax would allow us and other family farms and businesses to spend our time dealing with the challenges of the changing competitive world market instead of limiting our abilities due to the uncertainty of future tax burdens. Please repeal this cancer that cripples also the entrepreneurial spirit exhibited by small businesses across this great country. This lady: Why should one work most of her life in building up her farm business and other assets to have it taken by the estate tax? The amount allowed today is too low, because with the inflated prices one is still subject to paying large taxes. These are letters from Smith Center, Kansas; Elkhart, Kansas; Jamestown, Kansas; Jetmore, Kansas. These are people who understand on a day-to-day basis how difficult it is to succeed in business, to succeed on the farm and it is time that we move forward toward making their lives a better life for them and future generations. I worry, Mr. Speaker, that we have not done what we need to do to convince the American people. We hear their problems, we understand that if we do not make changes today, they and their children will not have the opportunities that I and my parents had because they lived in a different world where government did not take the tax bite, time and time again, from birth to death. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of elimination of the death tax. I rise in support of our efforts tomorrow to begin the process. I hope that before the day is over, we could have smiles on our faces and the American people will know that we heard their message loud and clear.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reflect on the passing of an outstanding man, Richard M. Driscoll of Russell, KS, who died last week at the age of 78. Mr. Driscoll was born on May 9, 1919, on a farm in southeastern Russell County, and graduated from Russell High School in 1937. ``Dick,'' as his friends called him, attended the University of Kansas from 1937 to 1940 and was a letterman on both the track and football teams. Mr. Driscoll enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps after graduating from Washburn Law School and served 2 years with the First Marine Division in the Pacific theater. Upon discharge from the Marines, he returned to Russell County and began to practice law. He was a well respected attorney in Kansas and was also active in farming, oil, and banking. Dick Driscoll served most of his life in public service. He was a commissioner of the Kansas Highway Department from 1958 to 1962 and from 1973 to 1975. He was a former commissioner on the Economic Development Commission of the State of Kansas from 1969 to 1973 and a member of the Kansas Trade Commission to Japan in 1973. He always enjoyed and was active in local, State, and national politics and was chairman of the Russell County Democratic Central Committee for 35 years. He was also a delegate to two Democratic National Conventions. He was admitted to the Kansas Bar on July 1, 1943, and received his 50-year certificate and pin of active service in 1993. He was named a counselor to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971. Mr. Speaker, men like Dick Driscoll made this country great as soldiers in war and stewards in peace. He will be missed by his family, friends, and fellow residents of the first district. I ask you to join me in paying tribute to Richard M. Driscoll and his lifetime of service to his Nation and State.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his very fine words and his message that needs to be listened to by everyone. President Clinton Delivers the First Balanced Budget in a Generation-- Historic Agreement Promotes the Country's Priorities President Clinton has achieved a balanced budget agreement that includes critical investments in education, health care, and the environment while strengthening and modernizing Medicare and Medicaid--just as he promised last year. We have cut the deficit 63%--from $290 billion in 1992 to $107 billion last year. This historic achievement will finish the job, giving the American people the first balanced budget in a generation, while meeting the President's goals. goal: to ensure that every 8-year-old can read, every 12-year-old can log on to the internet, and every 18-year-old can go to college Largest Pell Grant Increase in Two Decades--4 million students will receive a grant of up to $3,000, an increase of $300 in the maximum grant. Tax cuts targeted to higher education to make college more affordable for America's families. An America Reads initiative to mobilize a million tutors to help three million children learn to read by the end of the third grade. Expansion of Head Start--to achieve goal of one million kids in 2002. Doubles funding to help schools integrate innovative technology into the curriculum. goal: expand health coverage for as many as 5 million uncovered children Medicaid improvements and added Medicaid investments. A new capped mandatory grant program that provides additional dollars to supplement states efforts to cover uninsured children in working families. goal: secure and strengthen medicare and medicaid Extends the solvency of Medicare Trust Fund to at least 2007 through long overdue structural reforms. Expands coverage of critical preventive treatments of diseases such as diabetes and breast cancer. Preserves the federal Medicaid guarantee of coverage to our nation's most vulnerable people. goal: strengthen environmental protection and enforcement Accelerates Superfund cleanups by almost 500 sites by the year 2000. Expands the Brownfield Redevelopment Initiative to help communities cleanup and redevelop contaminated areas. Boosts environmental enforcement to protect public health from environmental threats. goal: move people from welfare to work and treat legal immigrants fairly A Welfare-to-Work tax credit to help long-term welfare recipients get jobs. Restores disability and health benefits for legal immigrants. Restores Medicaid coverage for poor legal immigrant children. Preserves food stamp benefits for people willing to work. Provides States and cities with additional resources to move disadvantaged recipients into jobs. goal: cuts taxes for America's hard working families A Child Tax Credit to make it easier for families to raise their kids. Tax cuts targeted to higher education to make college more affordable for America's families. A Welfare-to-Work tax credit to help long-term welfare recipients get jobs. Establishes additional Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, today, I along with my colleague Deborah Pryce, are introducing legislation to address HUD's mark-to-market approach and portfolio restructuring of section 8 housing. For the past 2 years, Congress has been faced with the question of how to address the pending expiration of section 8 contracts on some 800,000 units of affordable housing nationwide. During this fiscal year and with greater frequency into the next century, affordable rental housing units assisted under the section 8 program are at risk. Properties assisted under the section 8 program and the many thousands of families, seniors, and disabled who live in section 8 housing, are hurt by uncertainty about the future. They are all at risk because this program must be reformed in order to survive. From a cost standpoint, program accountability and program administration by HUD, section 8 has become a convenient political scapegoat. We must acknowledge that there is some truth in the criticisms made about this program. I have joined with my colleagues in questioning the long-term cost-effectiveness of maintaining the current HUD section 8 program. I am concerned when I read public accounts that document the fact that rents on section 8 assisted rental housing units are far above what could reasonably be considered market rates. I am concerned when this Government provides billions of dollars of rental subsidies only to be made painfully aware of the neglect, and in some cases, outright fraud committed by owners and managers of such assisted housing units. I am also concerned when HUD representatives say they lack the capacity to administer this program effectively. As a former mayor, I wonder who at the local level will be the first to step forward to take HUD's place. In an age when we have begun to end welfare as we know it, I am also concerned how we can justify the provision of rental assistance to individuals who are allowed to hold on to such assistance for an indefinite period of time. At the same time, thousands wait years for a chance to receive assistance that is in short supply. These concerns have been discussed at length in Congress. The problems and concerns we face in the long-term provision of affordable housing in this country are well documented. A shrinking HUD budget and the cost of renewing section 8 at current rents are on a collision course destined to lead us to drastic measures and hard choices. Within the next 5 years, contracts on more than 2.7 million units, more than 90 percent of the entire section 8 low-income housing stock, will expire. Estimates show that by the year 2002, the cost to renew all contracts under the current program will be between $17 and $20 billion annually: a cost equal to HUD's entire current budget. Faced with this reality, we have relied for 2 years on Band-aids of demonstration programs and 1-year appropriations. While I congratulate and respect the work and creativity of my colleagues in the House and Senate who have faced this issue, I believe the time for temporary fixes has ended. We must act to define and enact responsible legislation of a permanent nature. We owe that to the residents of this housing, to the responsible owners and managers who care for it, to the financial institutions that have a stake in its financial future and to the American public who have invested hard- earned tax dollars to support its development and preservation since the mid-1970's. The proposal we are introducing today builds on a proposal introduced late last session by Senator Connie Mack. The principle focus of both our bills is to reduce the cost of the section 8 program and provide the certainty of continued housing assistance for those in need. This legislation provides a way to address this matter responsibly. Our reform proposal reins in exorbitant rental contracts that can reach 180 percent of the fair market rent. Existing debts on all FHA-insured properties 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. Owners who wish to renew their section 8 contracts without going through the restructuring process can do so as long as the current rents do not exceed 120 percent of the fair market rent. In light of HUD's diminishing administrative capacity and budget reductions, the responsibility for restructuring can be assumed by State housing finance agencies or State-qualified local agencies. Residents should be given opportunities to comment and participate in the program. Negligent owners, who have materially violated their regulatory agreements, would be barred from the new program and encouraged to sell the property to resident groups, nonprofits, or other entities willing to participate in the new program. I would also not rule out strengthening the bankruptcy laws to increase recovery from negligent owners and imposing tougher sanctions on owners who abuse the new program. These reforms have a potential to save the program by preserving a large share of the existing units, reducing the number of potential evictions, lowering the risk to the FHA insurance fund and saving precious tax dollars. In closing I welcome the interest and support of all Members who believe, as I do, that this issue must be resolved promptly and responsibly. I believe that the action taken here today is a step to encourage a more detailed discussion and thorough debate on an issue we can no longer defer. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Banking Committee as well as the Appropriations Committee, on which I serve, who will take the lead in reaching a fair and reasonable solution.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker I rise today in support of H.R. 1342, a bill to provide technical corrections for the Conservation Reserve program. I would like to first thank the chairman of the Agriculture Committee for bringing this legislation before the House of Representatives. For those of us with producers caught by the timing of these new CRP regulations, this bill offers a sensible method of returning the ground to production agriculture and protecting the conservation benefits of the program for as long as possible. H.R. 1342 is a narrow solution to a real problem. At a hearing on February 26, 1997, held by the Subcommittee on Forestry, Resource Conservation and Research, I shared my concerns on the timing of the new CRP regulations. On February 27, I introduced legislation, H.R. 861, that shares much in common with the bill before this Chamber. H.R. 1342 allows producers whose land is not accepted to extend their contract for up to 1 additional year at the owner's new bid. For producers in winter wheat country, this bill allows for a reasonable transition of land back into production. Under the current CRP enrollment situation established by the USDA, producers are faced with the option of losing 11 years of production in a 10-year program or being told to tear up the ground prior to being notified of a CRP decision and then trying to receive cost-share funds to replant the land back into grass if that land was indeed accepted. Neither one of these situations made sense to Kansans whose land is in the program or to this Member of Congress. The Conservation Reserve program is an extremely important, popular, and effective program for the people of the first district of Kansas and across the country. Nationwide, over 30 million acres of environmentally sensitive land have been enrolled in this important program. The benefits of this program are readily seen through reduced runoff and soil erosion, improved wildlife habitat, and better air quality by reducing wind erosion. These benefits are important and I am optimistic that through the efforts of this legislation, the conservation benefits can be extended and maintained. Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1342 and take a positive step in supporting one of this Nation's most successful conservation programs.