Dennis Moore

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, twenty-five years ago this April the Taiwan Relations Act was signed into law. For the last quarter of a century, there has been relative peace and tranquility in the Taiwan Strait-- thanks in large part to the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act, which spells out the extent of our commitment to Taiwan in the event of an armed invasion from the People's Republic of China against Taiwan. Today the people of Taiwan enjoy freedom and prosperity. In the years ahead, I am confident that the relationship between the U.S. and Taiwan will only grow stronger as we continue to build on common principles, including freedom, democracy and human rights. On the eve of the 25th anniversary of the TRA, I commend the foresight and wisdom of my colleagues and former colleagues in Congress for having written this landmark piece of legislation, which has benefited both the people of Taiwan and people of the United States. Today I urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating the strong tradition of cooperation and friendship between the United States and Taiwan. I look forward to the continuation of a relationship that will last for the next twenty-five years and beyond.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Building Safety Week, observed April 4-10. Building safety affects many aspects of American life. Because of building safety code enforcement, we enjoy the comfort of structures that are safe and sound. Building safety and fire prevention officials work with citizens to address building safety and fire prevention concerns everyday. The dedicated members of the International Code Council, including building safety and fire prevention officials, architects, engineers, and others in the construction industry, develop and enforce the codes that safeguard Americans in the buildings where we live, work, play and learn. The International Codes, the most widely adopted building safety and fire prevention codes in the nation, are used by most U.S. cities, counties and states. Building safety codes provide safeguards to protect the public from natural disasters that can occur all across the country, such as snowstorms, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildland fires, and earthquakes. Building safety codes also work to minimize other potential building catastrophes. Building Safety Week, sponsored by the International Code Council Foundation, is an opportunity to educate the public. It is a perfect time to increase public awareness of the role building safety and fire prevention officials, local and state building departments, and federal agencies play in the first line of defense to protect the public. This year's theme, ``You Can Be a Part of Building Safety Week,'' encourages all Americans to raise our awareness of building safety, and to take appropriate steps to ensure that the places where we live, work, play and learn are safe. Countless lives have been saved because of the building safety codes adopted and enforced by local and state agencies. This year, as we observe Building Safety Week, I ask all Americans to consider projects to improve building safety at home and in the community, and to recognize the local building safety and fire prevention officials and the important role that they play in public safety. I am proud to have this opportunity to recognize building safety and fire prevention officials today and urge all people to participate in Building Safety Week activities and to commence efforts to improve building safety.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) for his remarks and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) as well. Last September, I heard a National Public Radio story about troops coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq. They were being deposited at Baltimore and Atlanta, and from there forced to pay their own way home or stay in Baltimore and Atlanta. I could not believe this. I checked with my staff and found out it was in fact true. I drafted a bill which, within 8 days, I think, got 155 Republican and Democrat cosponsors. I teamed up with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) who just spoke, and we put our bills together. He had a similar vote which passed by voice vote. Unfortunately, it only went back, according to the Department of Defense, to December 19. Our intention was clearly that this be retroactive back to the date when this program started, the rest and recuperation, bringing our troops home to be reunited with their families and loved ones for 2 weeks before they went back to Afghanistan or Iraq to finish their tour of duty. Now, I am very, very pleased that Senate S. 2057, the Senate companion to H.R. 2731 that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) and I had, will complete the job; and if the House passes this today, we will in fact ensure that the troops are entitled to be reimbursed for their travel prior to December 19 and will in fact be reimbursed. That is the right thing to do for our troops and country. We talk so much in this body about how much we value our troops, and it was simply, simply wrong that we would ask those folks coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan to pay their own way back to their homes and then back to the coastal port for deployment again to finish their tour of duty. There is a little bit of dispute about the number of troops. My figures were 29,000, those of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) were a bit more, and there is a little bit of dispute about the cost of the reimbursement for travel for these troops. But I think the intention of Congress here is very, very clear, and it is really, really nice when Republicans and Democrats can come together and the people out there in the country can see that in fact we are not just talking about supporting our troops, but we are putting our money where our mouth is. It is exactly the right thing to do.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. I want to respond to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) who talked at least four times about spending is out of control; and I want to remind my young friend from Texas, who is in control here in the House, in the Senate and the White House, and that is his party. His party has the majority in the House and the Senate and the White House. So if spending is out of control, I suggest you look to yourself, sir. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleagues have heard the numbers, $7 trillion plus in national debt, $521 billion projected this year by OMB for the deficit, the highest numbers in our Nation's history in terms of debt and deficit. We heard at the first of the administration, deficits do matter, and now we do hear as a percentage of GDP the deficits are not that big. Well, my colleagues cannot have it both ways. This should not be about Democrats and Republicans. This should be about taking care of our country, our children, our grandchildren, the future of our children and our grandchildren, and our own well-being in terms of our economic well-being in the future. We need to change our course. I just heard my good friend, the gentleman from Connecticut, say that there are no tax increases for the next 5 years. I understand what the gentleman means when he says there will be no tax increases for the next 5 years, but the truth is this, Mr. Chairman. The truth is that there is a tax increase that is being passed in this budget this year and next year and the next year, and the tax increase that is being passed is the debt tax. The third largest category of expenditures in our Federal budget, after defense and Social Security and Medicare, is interest on our national debt, the third largest category of expenditures, almost $1 billion a day. It is the debt tax, and we are going to be paying it, but more importantly, our children and grandchildren in the future will be paying it; and as the interest obligation increases, which it is doing as our debt and deficits get bigger, the debt tax is increasing. So when they say there are no tax increases, I know they intend there not to be a tax increase, but the fact is there are very real tax increases for our children and grandchildren to pay. We need to get together again. This should not be about Republicans and Democrats, and I know for a fact there is a skirmish going on on the other side because there are people on the Republican side of the aisle who care very, very desperately about our financial posture right now and want to correct it. But the skirmish is going on, can we get this resolved, and I think we can come together as Democrats and Republicans on a strictly bipartisan basis and address this issue in the future because it needs to be addressed for our children and grandchildren. I saw one other disturbing thing I want to mention, and then I am going to yield time to my friend from Tennessee. This morning they reported on television, and I have seen some news reports since then, that by 2019 the Medicare trust fund may be in a serious, serious adverse position. By 2042, the same is true of Social Security. This course of action that we are talking about right now is simply not sustainable. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds just to respond that my friend, the last speaker, wants to cut taxes and have veterans' health care pay for it. My friend, the last speaker, wants to cut taxes and have money come out of the Social Security trust fund. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution before the House of Representatives today that commends the members of the United States armed forces and coalition forces for liberating Iraq, and expresses the gratitude of the American people for their valiant service. On a plane coming home to Kansas recently, I had a conversation about the situation in Iraq with a man who served our country in Vietnam. The veteran noted the contrast in the treatment of soldiers returning home today compared with what he had faced. He didn't provide details, but the memories of his own homecoming still brought tears decades later. March 20th will mark the one-year anniversary of our intervention in Iraq. I'm thankful time has changed the way we treat veterans who have served our country. While I hear differing opinions from Kansans about this issue, we can all agree on the need to support the thousands of men and women in harm's way who protect our freedom and stand up for us in the war on terrorism. Last September, I met with family members of the over 300 reservists and National Guard members from units based in my district deployed to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Many reservists and members of the National Guard left behind jobs and families with reduced income and limited support networks. Some have lost their homes and small businesses in order to do their duty. To show our gratitude for their sacrifices, I believe we must do everything we can to address the needs of our military. Troop strength, equipment, supplies, and care they need when they come home are an absolute. Too often Congress pays lip service to our veterans and military personnel, yet fails to deliver on solid votes and programs that would demonstrate our recognition of their sacrifice. I listened to military personnel and their families, and I'm proud my legislative proposals are helping troops and veterans. In November 2003, my proposal to relieve the travel burden on troops coming home for Rest and Recuperation (R&R) was signed into law. The new law provides funding to cover all travel costs necessary to return service personnel home to their families. Another bill I introduced that will protect the growing health care needs of our veterans became law in December 2003. In January, I was part of a small congressional delegation to Iraq. I heard firsthand from those serving on the front lines, including Kansas military personnel who are upbeat and proud of their efforts in Iraq. I was pleased to learn that many of the concerns about equipment and supplies have been corrected. I returned from Iraq more confident about the condition of American troops and their morale. In times of crisis like the past year, our nation looks to the men and women of the armed forces. America must honor their sacrifice and courage by living up to her promises to service personnel, whether active duty, reservists, members of the National Guard or veterans. This anniversary is a time for all of us to reflect, by remembering the sacrifices our veterans are making and working for a more peaceful future.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday of this week, I attended the funeral of an outstanding public servant who was taken from us too soon. Former Lenexa, KS, Mayor Joan Bowman died on March 11 after 26 years of dedicated public service to the community that is my home. Joan Bowman died after a long battle with cancer. This longtime community leader, volunteer and advocate for education and individuals with disabilities was elected Lenexa mayor in 1995 and 1999. She was first elected to the Lenexa City Council in 1987, the same year she was inducted into the Lenexa Volunteer Hall of Fame. Her career in public office began in 1978 as a member of the Shawnee Mission West High School Advisory Board. In 1981, she began the first of two terms on the Shawnee Mission Board of Education, where she served as board president for 2 years. In her honor, flags at Lenexa city hall were flown at half staff. Last month, the people of Lenexa dedicated to former Mayor Bowman a 7-foot, bronze statue of Na Nex Se, the Shawnee Native American woman after whom Lenexa was named. Dedicated to Bowman for her leadership and service to our community, the statue was funded with city resources and through a local letter writing campaign, which ultimately raised $8,000 more than was needed. I hope that Joan Bowman's legacy, as embodied in the Na Nex Se statue, will inspire future generations of Lenexans to make significant contributions to our community. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record for your review a copy of the Kansas City Star's obituary regarding this remarkable, dedicated public servant. [From the Kansas City Star, Mar. 12, 2004] Former Lenexa Mayor Dies (By Eugene Scott) Former Lenexa Mayor Joan Bowman, who was an advocate for education and persons with disabilities in her 26 years of public service, died Thursday after battling cancer. She was 63. Bowman was respected as a volunteer and an officeholder, and news of her battle with cancer had been widespread in recent years. In February, city officials dedicated a statue of Na Nex Se, the Shawnee American Indian woman after whom Lenexa was named, to Bowman in honor of her service and leadership. Bowman was elected mayor twice, in 1995 and 1999. She was elected to the city council in 1987, the same year she was inducted into the Lenexa Volunteer Hall of Fame. Current Lenexa Mayor Mike Boehm said Bowman's desire to implement projects in Lenexa's best interest greatly enhanced the city. ``Her biggest impact on Lenexa was that she took a reasonable approach. Joan would study every issue brought before her, and give it the necessary attention,'' he said. Leawood Mayor Peggy Dunn worked with Bowman on the Johnson County/Wyandotte County Council of Mayors and developed a personal friendship. ``She was an outstanding leader, and a wonderful mentor to those of us who knew her,'' she said. ``She was always ready to listen, and to give . . . wise counsel.'' While Bowman formed friendships with other political leaders, Dunn said her ability to separate professional and personal relationships made her an effective leader. ``Her ability to see the big picture in every situation, to rise above personal feelings and do what was really the best thing for the greater good encouraged others to do so as well,'' Dunn said. Rich Becker, Lenexa's mayor when Bowman was elected to the city council, admired her strong work ethic. ``She was the toughest woman I ever met in my life,'' he said. ``She was very meticulous, and she wanted to make sure that all the i's were dotted and all the t's were crossed.'' While demanding, Bowman was humble, Becker said, and realized that being a team player would lead to success for everyone involved. ``She liked to involve as many people as she could in making decisions. She was involved in so many things, and very easy to work with. She was the kind of person you look up to and say `nice job,' '' he said. Her career in public office began in 1978 as a member of the Shawnee Mission West Advisory Board. In 1981, she served the first of two terms on the Shawnee Mission Board of Education. She was board president for two years. Julie Miller, a Shawnee Mission school board member for 16 years, met Bowman when the two served on the district's advisory boards. She remembers Bowman being consistently well-informed and dependable. ``She was a brilliant person. You could always count on Joan,'' she said. Before beginning her career in public service, Bowman taught math at junior high schools in the Shawnee Mission district. She graduated from Pittsburg State University in 1962. David Watkins, Lenexa's city administrator for 19 years before leaving to accept a position as city administrator in Auburn, Ala., said Bowman's experience in education allowed her to communicate effectively with community members while listening to their concerns: ``She could take complex issues like the watershed program, and take all that technical info and reformat it to citizen groups in a manner that they can understand.'' She was on the Lenexa Convention and Visitors Bureau board, the Lenexa Chamber of Commerce's board of directors, and was a member of the Lenexa Historical Society. Council member Diane Linver said that despite Bowman's numerous offices and accolades, she would want to be remembered as a person who cared about her family and her community. ``She was a wonderful wife, a wonderful mother and a wonderful friend,'' she said. Survivors include her husband, Ed, and two sons.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note an important event in the Third Congressional District of Kansas. On April 14, 2004, the Volunteer Center of Johnson County in Overland Park, KS, will honor outstanding youth volunteers. Eighty-seven young people have been nominated by school personnel and nonprofit organizations for their dedication and service to the community. Eleven of these youth are being recognized for their efforts toward receipt of the Congressional Award. Youth volunteerism continues to grow and be a strong force in Johnson County. These 87 youth exemplify the true meaning of volunteerism and giving back to their community. It is my honor to recognize each student volunteer and their schools by listing them in the Congressional Record: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ First Last School ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Katy.................. Accurso............... Leawood Middle School. Jefferson............. Adams................. Leawood Middle School. Jonathan.............. Adams................. Leawood Middle School. Alejandra............. Alvarez............... Shawnee Mission North. Jessica............... Alvarez............... Shawnee Mission North. Meredith.............. Beery................. Olathe East. Brooklyn.............. Bengtson.............. Olathe South. Grace................. Bernhardt............. Leawood Middle School. Brett................. Beyer................. Shawnee Mission Northwest. Jordan................ Bluhm................. Spring Hill Middle. Elizabeth............. Boresow............... Leawood Middle School. Jessie................ Bullock............... Notre Dame de Sion. Meghan................ Burrow................ Shawnee Mission South. Lauren................ Cantril............... Mission Valley Middle. Jenna................. Christensen........... Shawnee Mission North. Jill.................. Christensen........... Hope Lutheran. Ashley................ Coleman............... Mill Valley High School. Ed.................... Colson................ Olathe Northwest High. Jenna................. Davis................. Olathe South. Sam................... Davis................. Leawood Middle School. Jennifer.............. Dennis................ Frontier Trail Jr. High. Tyler................. Dixon................. Olathe Northwest High. Carli................. Dutton................ Olathe South. Aly................... Ferguson.............. Prairie Star Middle. Kate.................. Garrett............... Shawnee Mission West. Sean.................. Giddings.............. Trailridge Middle School. Morgan................ Greenough............. Prairie Star Middle. Heather............... Gustin................ Olathe South High. Jessica............... Habluetzel............ Olathe Northwest High. Josh.................. Heath................. Prairie Star Middle. Paul.................. Hechler............... Leawood Middle School. Emily................. Heinz................. California Trail. Amanda................ Henry................. Shawnee Mission North. Hilary................ Hershberger........... Blue Valley West. Emily................. Horner................ Shawnee Mission Northwest. Madison............... Huber................. Shawnee Mission West. Andrea................ Huckaba............... Shawnee Mission West. Nicole................ Kiesling.............. Shawnee Mission Northwest. Andie................. Kincaid............... Frontier Trail Jr. High. Allyssa............... King.................. De Soto High School. Stacie................ Kornfeld.............. Shawnee Mission West. Jason................. Lee................... Blue Valley Northwest. Krystian.............. Lestourgeon........... Frontier Trail Jr. High. Mallory............... Loveridge............. Shawnee Mission West. Thomas................ Lucy.................. Leawood Middle School. Alyssa................ Lyon.................. Olathe South. Kyle.................. May................... Harmony Middle School. Magdalena............. May................... Oregon Trail Jr. High. Anne.................. McClain............... Prairie Star Middle. Laura................. McGee................. Shawnee Mission South. Meagan................ Melloy................ Homeschool. Melissa............... Melloy................ Homeschool. Tracy................. Milburn............... Shawnee Mission South. Stephanie............. Moore................. Shawnee Mission South. Rhea.................. Muchalla.............. Shawnee Mission North. Katie................. Murray................ Blue Valley North High. Simin................. Naomani............... University of Missouri. Nicole................ Nelson................ Blue Valley Middle. Amy................... Noonen................ Shawnee Mission West. Hannah................ Nusz.................. Piper. Kaitlyn............... Orr................... Shawnee Mission North. Kathryn............... Pierce................ Olathe South. Ashley................ Pratt................. Shawnee Mission West. Katie................. Rabovsky.............. Blue Valley Northwest. Kelly................. Rand.................. Olathe South. Courtney.............. Rathke................ Oregon Trail Jr. High. Nicole................ Rea................... Prairie Star Middle. Alex.................. Robinson.............. Prairie Star Middle. Craig................. Rooney................ Shawnee Mission Northwest. Mallory............... Selzer................ Barstow. Kate.................. Silvers............... Shawnee Mission West. Cassie................ Slocum................ Trailridge Middle School. Ashley................ Spence................ Blue Valley North. Erin.................. Starnes............... Mill Valley High School. Katelyn............... Stone................. Shawnee Mission Northwest High. Ashlee................ Suddarth.............. Oregon Trail Jr. High. Erika................. Swenson............... Johnson Co. Community College. Tana.................. Thomason.............. Oregon Trail Jr. High. Kathryn............... Thomasset............. Shawnee Mission West. Ankita................ Trivedi............... Olathe North. Jennifer.............. Waldman............... Mission Valley Middle. Nate.................. White................. Homeschool. Kody.................. Willnauer............. De Soto High School. Andrew................ Yager................. Frontier Trail Jr. High. Scott................. Young................. Olathe South. Laura................. Zeligman.............. Olathe East. Mary.................. Zima.................. Notre Dame de Sion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to recognize the recent passing of Gerry Getty, a noted elementary school teacher and community leader in Franklin County, Kansas, which is located just to the south of the Third Congressional District of Kansas. Gerry Getty taught elementary school for 32 years, was active in the National Education Association, and founded the Franklin County Literature Festival. I am saddened by her death at the young age of 53 and want to bring to the attention of our membership an article about her that ran in the Ottawa Herald on February 12th and her obituary from the Topeka Capital-Journal of February 13th. Dedicated educators like Gerry Getty are essential to the success of our children and grandchildren. Through their selfless work on behalf of their students they foster a love of learning within our local communities. I commend Gerry Getty to my colleagues in the House and I hope we all will be inspired by her efforts to make life better for her students and for her neighbors in Franklin County. [From the Ottawa Herald, Feb. 12, 2004] Literature Festival Founder Dies (By Andy Gassaway) Gerry Getty, a retired elementary teacher and founder of the annual Franklin County Literature Festival, died Wednesday after a long illness. She was 53. She spent 22 of her 32 years as an educator teaching elementary students in the Central Heights school district, instituting the district's Parent-Teacher Organization and its Reading Is Fundamental program, in which students received free books to take home each year. ``When she saw something she thought would be good for kids, she went for it,'' Vickie Hall, Lincoln Elementary fifth grade teacher, said. ``She has left quite a legacy of the love of literature.'' She graduated from Kansas State Teaching College in Emporia in 1971. In 1992, she received a master's degree from Kansas State University. Before coming to Franklin County, Getty taught in Overbrook, and Tipton. During her tenure at Central Heights, she also taught adult classes at Neosho County Community College's Ottawa campus. Beginning in 1994, Getty organized a literature festival at Central Heights that brought children's authors to the area to meet with students. In 2002, the event was transplanted to Ottawa University and included students from all of Franklin County. ``She had a passion for reading,'' Steve Getty, her husband, said. ``Her dream was for every student to be able to read. She wanted to bring it home to Franklin County, and wanted all students to see the wonderful world of literature, meet authors and bring a little culture to their lives.'' Last year, the event brought together more than 1,500 students on the OU campus to visit with 13 authors, illustrators and storytellers who took the day to discuss their craft with the young readers. Steve Getty said his wife enjoyed reading the same books she read to her students. Her favorite authors included Mary Downing Hahn and Vicki Grove, he said. Getty led the way in affiliating the local teachers' association with Kansas National Education Association and National Education Association in 1990. She served several years as president of the association and its negotiating team, and was a delegate to the state convention and three national conventions during her tenure. Her efforts earned her the Viking of the Year award, as voted upon by her fellow teachers at Central Heights. Other honors included being recognized in Who's Who Among America's Teachers, the 2001 Outstanding Reading Educator award from the Franklin County Reading Council and the 2002 Kansas Reading Association Professional Literacy Award. ``She's a very well-respected teacher,'' Central Heights elementary principal Mary Bogart said. ``She may have led a short life, but she was a real doer.'' Funeral Mass will be at 10 a.m. Monday at Sacred Heart Catholic Church, Ottawa. Getty has been cremated. A Rosary will be said at 2 p.m. Sunday at Dengel & Son Mortuary, Ottawa, followed by a family visitation. [From the Topeka Capital-Journal, Feb. 13, 2004] Gerry Ann Getty Gerry Ann Getty, 53, Ottawa, died Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2004, at the University of Kansas Hospital, Kansas City. Funeral mass will be 10 a.m. Monday at Sacred Heart Catholic Church with the Rev. Tod Ziegler officiating. She was born July 21, 1950, to Mathias and Marie (Haug) Roeder in Seneca. She grew up on a dairy farm in Nemaha County. She graduated from Baileyville-Benedict High School in 1968. She graduated from Kansas State Teachers College, Emporia, in 1971. In 1992, she received a master's degree from Kansas State. She married Steven Getty on Oct. 3, 1970, at Seneca. He survives. She was an elementary school teacher for 32 years. She taught in Overbrook, McDonald, Tipton and Central Heights. She also taught adult classes at Neosho County Community College's Ottawa campus. She was a member of Sacred Heart Catholic Church. She founded the Franklin County Reading Festival in 2000. She was president and chief negotiator for her local chapter of the National Education Association and served as a national delegate. She received several education awards, including Who's Who Among America's Teachers, 1995 Viking of the Year, 2001 Outstanding Reading Educator from the Franklin County Reading Council, and the 2002 Kansas Reading Association Professional Literacy Award. Her survivors also include two sons, Brent Getty, Lawrence, and Marc Getty, Kansas City, Mo.; three brothers, Larry Roeder, Hiawatha, Dan Roeder, Overland Park, and Dave Roeder, Washington, D.C.; and two sisters, Kathryn Roeder, Pittsburgh, Pa., and Karen Underwood, Los Angeles. Her body was cremated. Rosary will be recited at 2 p.m. Sunday at Dengel & Son Mortuary, where the family will meet friends immediately following. Family inurnment will be later. A memorial has been established with the Franklin County Literature Festival. Condolences may be e-mailed to the family through dengelmortuary@sbcglobal.net.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my sincere congratulations to the Lawrence Public Library of Lawrence, KS, which is located in my congressional district. For 100 years, this important and valuable local institution has provided public service, access to books and other informational materials, cultural enhancement and contributions to community development in Lawrence. It is a remarkable achievement to celebrate a century of service and the staff and supporters of the Lawrence Public Library over the past 100 years are to be congratulated. An enlightened citizenry is the cornerstone of our American democracy. Access to information is an important right of all citizens, and our public libraries play a key role in assuring free and equal access to information. In this and many other regards, a public library is an example of democracy at its finest. Thank you for your outstanding, vital service to the community of Lawrence and the northeast region of the State of Kansas. It will be exciting to see what the coming decades bring in terms of public library service; I am certain that the fine staff and board of the Lawrence Public Library will be equal to the task of ever adapting, and continually expanding technologies, collections and services. I know I join with all Lawrence residents in offering my best wishes for your future success.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I am from Kansas and I go home virtually every weekend. And when I go home, I talk to my constituents; and they tell me, not in these words, these are mine but I guess it is what I have kind of distilled from their comments to me over the past 5 years I have been in Congress, why can Congress and America not live like American families do? There are three simple rules that Kansas families and American families follow: number one, do not spend more money than you make; number two, pay off your debts; number three, invest in basics for the future. Of course, the basics for a nation are national defense, some sort of highway system to move goods around the country and make our economy work strong. The basics for a family are food, shelter, education, health care, transportation, all the things that you think of, that we pay our bills on a monthly basis. And yet we routinely in government have spent more money than we took in, resulting in a $7.1 trillion national debt, $7.1 trillion. That is 7,000 billion dollars, more than most people, myself included, can even imagine. My colleagues have heard other speakers talk about our deficit this year as opposed to combination of all the years of deficit, but our deficit this year is the highest in our Nation's history, $521 billion, and that does not even include the supplemental the administration says they are going to request for Iraq, which the OMB director, the Office of Management and Budget director, said would be as much as $50 billion, if not more. That means we are $521 billion in deficit for just 1 year. We are spending right now $1 billion a day on our debt tax; and the debt tax, of course, as my colleagues heard another speaker say, is the interest we pay on our national debt, $1 billion a day. We used to say, another day another dollar. Now it is another day, another billion dollars. The interest we pay on our national debt is the third largest category of expenditure in our national budget. After defense and Social Security and Medicare is interest on the national debt, and that is money that could be used for health care for children, for education, for anything worthwhile besides interest on the national debt. I am on the Committee on the Budget and Committee on Financial Services, and I have heard Chairman Greenspan testify the last several years, and I have had a chance to question him at least once or twice each year. The one question I routinely ask Chairman Greenspan is, if this Congress could do something, what would he ask Congress to do that would help shore up our economy in this country? And his answer is consistent. Fiscal responsibility, live within our means, and that means a balanced budget and when we can to start to pay down debt. Chairman Greenspan, I am confident if he were standing right here tonight, in fact I will predict in the next 30 to 60 days Chairman Greenspan is going to issue a stern statement or a major policy address talking about his concern about the possibility of rising interest rates if we do not get our fiscal house in order. Some of my colleagues are old enough to remember the late seventies. We had interest rates in this country of 13, 15, 17 percent; and that would be absolutely devastating for the real estate industry, for business generally and for consumer borrowing, 15, 17 percent interest rates. We cannot do that as a Nation, and we cannot anymore afford and we should not pass on our charge debts to our children and grandchildren. It is the wrong thing to do. I spoke to a high school class three weeks ago, and I said to this class, why should they care about a $7 trillion national debt. A senior in high school, girl, said because we are going to have to pay it off, and her teacher said she gets an A for today. I told these students that is absolutely wrong, they should be angry, and they should contact their senators and their Member of Congress and tell them they are taking our country down the wrong path, to turn us around. We are the greatest country in the whole world. We are the only superpower in the whole world, but a country like the United States, even the United States cannot be strong and free and broke. We have to turn our country around for our children, for our grandchildren and for America.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to one provision of the conference report before us today, which causes me to vote against the entire measure. This legislation authorizes classified amounts in fiscal year 2004 for 14 U.S. intelligence agencies and intelligence-related activities of the U.S. government--including the CIA and the National Security Agency, as well as foreign intelligence activities of the Defense Department, the FBI, the State Department, the Homeland Security Department, and other agencies. H.R. 2417 covers CIA and general intelligence operations, including signals intelligence, clandestine human-intelligence programs and analysis, and covert action capabilities. It also authorizes covert action programs, research and development, and projects to improve information dissemination. All of these are important and vital programs, which I support. I am voting against this measure today, however, to draw attention to a provision which I believe should have been the subject of more rigorous congressional analysis than merely an up-or-down vote as part of a larger conference agreement. This measure expands the definition of ``financial institution'' to provide enhanced authority for intelligence community collection activities designed to prevent, deter and disrupt terrorism and espionage directed against the United States and to enhance foreign intelligence efforts. Banks, credit unions and other financial institutions currently are required to provide certain financial data to investigators generally without a court order or grand jury subpoena. The conference agreement expands the list to include car dealers, pawnbrokers, travel agents, casinos and other businesses. This provision allows the U.S. government to have, through use of ``National Security Letters,'' greater access to a larger universe of information that goes beyond traditional financial records, but is nonetheless crucial in tracking terrorist finances or espionage activities. Current law permits the FBI to use National Security Letters to obtain financial records from defined financial institutions for foreign intelligence investigations. While not subject to court approval, the letters nonetheless have to be approved by a senior government official. The PATRIOT Act earlier had altered the standard for financial records that could be subject to National Security Letters to include the records of someone ``sought for'' an investigation, not merely of the ``target'' of an investigation. While this new provision of law included in the conference report does not amend the PATRIOT Act, I agree with the six Senators who recently wrote to the Senate Intelligence Committee and asked them not to move ahead with such a significant expansion of the FBI's investigatory powers without further review. As they stated, public hearings, public debate and legislative protocol are essential in legislation involving the privacy rights of Americans. As a member of the House Financial Services Committee, I am concerned that these new provisions of law could be used to seize personal financial records that traditionally have been protected by financial privacy laws. The rush to judgment following the attacks of September 11, 2001, led to the rapid enactment of the PATRIOT Act, a measure which has caused substantial concerns among many Americans who value our constitutionally-protected liberties. Now that we are able to legislate in this area with a lessened sense of urgency, I urge my colleagues to step back and return this provision of H.R. 2417 to committee, where it can undergo the rigors of the normal legislative process so that Congress, and all Americans, can pass an informed judgment upon its merit.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report on H.R. 2622, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (the FACT Act). As a member of the House Financial Services Committee and as a member of the conference committee that drafted the final version of this legislation, I was deeply involved in the drafting and consideration of this measure. I was pleased to join with my colleagues, Representatives Bachus, Hooley and Biggert, in introducing this bipartisan measure. This bill was approved in subcommittee on a vote of 41-0, in full committee by a vote of 63-3 and by the full House by a vote of 392-30 with one voting present. Earlier this week, the Senate approved a similar version of this bill by 95-2. Mr. Speaker, this is the way Congress should work. This is the way our constituents want us to conduct their business. Consideration of this bill consistently has been bipartisan and thoughtful. All members of the committee with opinions and proposals on the issues raised by H.R. 2622 were able to offer amendments and participate in debate. The way in which this measure was handled made this a stronger piece of legislation than the version we introduced. I commend our committee's leadership, Chairman Oxley and Ranking Democrat Frank, for making this possible. Mr. Speaker, the problems of inaccurate and incomplete information that plague the current credit reporting system are of great personal concern to those of our constituents who have suffered them. I'm sure each of us could relate instances involving constituents who have faced tremendous difficulty and aggravation in correcting inaccurate credit histories. This legislation directly addresses these very real problems faced by people every day of the year. Our credit system is the envy of every other country in the world. Our country, overall, does an excellent job of making credit available quickly and fairly to consumers and businesses. Enactment of H.R. 2622 will preserve and strengthen this system. This conference agreement permanently extends those provisions of the 1996 version of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) that prevent states from enacting stronger credit laws, thereby extending the federal standards in those areas--including those rules dealing with how affiliates can share consumer information. The measure also provides new consumer protections against identity theft, including the following new provisions of law. The FACT Act will: Provide consumers with a free credit report every year from each of the three national credit bureaus, from a single centralized source; Give consumers the right to see their credit scores; Provide consumers with broad new medical privacy rights; Give consumers the ability to opt-out of information sharing between affiliated companies for marketing purposes; Establish a financial literacy commission and a national financial literacy campaign; Ensure that consumers are notified if merchants are going to report negative information to the credit bureaus about them; and Extend the seven expiring provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The FACT Act also includes several significant new provisions addressing the problems surrounding identity theft. It will: Allow consumers to place ``fraud alerts'' in their credit reports to prevent identity thieves from opening accounts in their names, including special provisions to protect active duty military personnel; Require creditors to take certain precautions before extending credit to consumers who have placed ``fraud alerts'' in their files; Allow consumers to block information from being given to a credit bureau and from being reported by a credit bureau if such information results from identity theft; Provide identity theft victims with a summary of their rights; Provide consumers with one-call-for-all protection by requiring credit bureaus to share consumer calls on identity theft, including requested fraud alert blocking. Prohibit merchants from printing more than the last 5 digits of a payment card on an electronic receipt; Require banks to develop policies and procedures to identify potential instances of identity theft; Require financial institutions to reconcile potentially fraudulent consumer address information; and Require lenders to disclose their contact information on consumer reports. While this legislation was the product of a bipartisan consensus and a conference procedure that produced what, overall, is an outstanding measure, I would like to raise concerns with one provision of the bill that I believe may need to be re-addressed in the near future, or we may run the risk of thwarting the continued evolution of risk-based pricing in the home mortgage market. First, I would like to talk about the benefits of risk-based pricing in the mortgage market. Not too long ago, only borrowers that fit the industry's cookie cutter mold of creditworthiness were deemed qualified to purchase a home or to tap their home equity. The market was two-tiered--all those who fit the mold got credit at the same price, and those who didn't fit the mold got no credit at all. But that has changed dramatically in recent years. More sophisticated risk measurement models were developed in the 1990s--helped in large part by the uniform credit reporting standards we are today preserving in this bill--that allow lenders to accurately measure credit risk and price it accordingly. The result has been that families previously shut out of the home purchase and home equity markets now have access to credit from mainstream lenders at rates that reflect the underlying risk of the borrower and the property. Mortgage credit markets are now fluid and access to credit is no longer bifurcated between the haves and have-nots. As research by the Federal Reserve Board has shown, the development of risk based pricing and the non-prime lending market has contributed significantly to the recent increases in homeownership rates, especially among low- and moderate-income households. With the growth of risk-based pricing comes the responsibility to educate consumers about the impact of less-than-timely repayment behavior and inaccurate credit report data on the cost of credit. One provision of this bill--which I strongly supported as did all of the major mortgage lenders--will require that lenders provide every home mortgage borrower with a copy of their credit score, the range of possible scores so borrowers can see where they fall in the spectrum, and the top four factors that lowered their score. The notice further advises borrowers about how credit scores are used and the need to ensure that their credit report information is accurate. The home mortgage transaction is the only one in which such information is provided to borrowers and the mortgage industry should be commended for supporting it. I am concerned, however, that a second provision of this bill--the Section 311 Risk Based Pricing Notice--may present problems for the mortgage industry because of the complex interaction of underwriting variables that go beyond credit history and extend to property characteristics and borrower financial assets like down payment and reserves. Specifically, I have concerns with the content and timing of the notice, as well as with the difficulty of determining the circumstances under which the notice would be triggered. There are many variables relating to the pricing and terms of mortgage loans that are unrelated to credit scores. These include whether the loan has a fixed or variable rate, the property type and the condition, the down payment and loan-to-value ratio, the debt-to- income ratio, and the presence or absence of features like prepayment penalties, mortgage insurance or balloon payments. In addition, the pricing of mortgage credit also changes frequently, sometimes several times a day, based upon market conditions or a lender's need for product to meet its production goals. Finally, the interest rate that borrowers pay--even for the exact same loan closing on the same day-- will vary widely based on when the borrower locked-in the interest rate. In other words, borrowers who close on the same day may have interest rates that were set weeks apart from one another. In addition, the final combination of rates and terms will reflect not only credit information, but the nature of the collateral, the financial assets of the borrower and choices made by borrowers based on their own personal circumstances. What is favorable to one borrower-- for example, a higher rate in exchange for no closing costs--may not be for another. What is a material term? Just rates and fees? Or is a fixed rate loan better than an adjustable? If a borrower gets a lower interest rate because he or she chooses a prepayment penalty, who gets the notice--the borrower with the lower rate or the one with the prepayment penalty? The risk based pricing notice in Section 311 asks mortgage lenders to make subjective decisions in order to determine which borrowers received ``material terms'' that are ``materially less favorable'' than the ``most favorable terms'' made available to a ``substantial proportion of consumers.'' In the context of a complicated mortgage transaction, this is a truly daunting regulatory burden fraught with significant compliance and legal risk. I fear that the impact of this risk will force lenders to use fewer risk categories and eliminate product features to ensure that such comparisons are easy to make and pose little risk of compliance error. This will not be good for consumer access to credit or consumer choice. As to timing of delivery of a notice, I note that information concerning a consumer's credit history and its relationship to the pricing of mortgage products may best be given to the consumer early in the credit granting so that this information can facilitate informed decision-making by the prospective borrower as well as timely consumer review of credit reports to ensure accuracy. Better that every mortgage borrower get an early disclosure about importance of good credit and an accurate report--before they pay application fees and get invested in a home purchase decision--than to get one at the closing table. Recognizing the challenges associated with implementing a risk based pricing notice in the mortgage context, I urge the regulatory agencies charged with rule making under this Section to report back to the Congress with recommendations for how to make the triggering, timing and content of the risk based pricing notices work in mortgage transactions without exposing lenders to undue compliance and litigation risks. These are issues that--if not addressed through the rulemaking--will need to be reexamined by Congress. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my fellow conferees for the significant and important legislation we have produced--the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003--and urge the House to join with me in approving this measure today.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, while I voted for the conference report on the omnibus energy bill, H.R. 6, the final version of this bill is far from perfect. We need a comprehensive energy policy that increases our national security by decreasing our dependence on foreign oil and improving public health and the condition of our environment by promoting clean, renewable energy sources and energy efficiency technologies. I voted for the conference report for H.R. 6 because it: excluded drilling for oil and gas in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; mandated more than doubling the use of renewable fuels in gasoline, primarily ethanol, to 5 billion gallons a year by 2012; allowed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, to establish a nationwide electricity reliability standard for power companies to help balance supply and demand in the power grid; and included H.R. 1331, legislation I have introduced the past three Congresses to reduce our country's dependence on foreign oil and reduce natural gas bills by extending a tax credit for production of unconventional fuels. This is of special interest to Kansas. Eastern Kansas has one of the nation's bigger reserves of coal bed methane, possibly two-thirds the size of the Hugoton gas field in southwest Kansas, the nation's largest. The ethanol provisions in the conference report are estimated to create an estimated $51 billion in new farm income by 2012, adding as much as 30 cents per bushel to the value of corn. This increase in the value of corn, soybeans and other feedstock will reduce the need for farm payments by an estimated $5.9 billion by 2012. The ethanol provision functions as a rural economic stimulus package by creating the need for $5.3 billion in new investment for renewable fuel production facilities in rural America, including Garnett, Kansas. The Renewable Fuel Standard is estimated to create 214,000 new U.S. jobs, mostly in rural America. Though I wish it did even more, the conference report does encourage the increased use of renewable energy sources such as wind and biomass through tax incentives. The conference report encourages a diversified portfolio for America's energy resource needs including traditional oil and gas, nuclear, and renewable energy like ethanol, biodiesel, wind, hydropower, and biomass. Over the long-term, renewable energy especially will be a huge asset to American agriculture and rural development. Our founding fathers made compromise one of the most important tools to the legislative process. Compromise is sometimes frustrating. And though I voted for the conference report for H.R. 6, there are several provisions I do not support. One of the most disconcerting is a provision that lets the companies that created and produced the gasoline additive MTBE off the hook for contaminating groundwater. Now, state and local taxpayers will pay cleanup costs for many contaminated sites. The bill nullifies lawsuits by cities, states and others filed on or after September 5, 2003, seeking compensation for contamination of groundwater by MTBE. In the same vein under this bill, taxpayers, rather than polluters, will pay up to $2 billion to clean up leaking underground storage tanks containing gasoline and other toxic chemicals even at sites where viable responsible parties are identifiable. This bill also authorizes a $1.1 billion nuclear reactor in Idaho, with a potential exemption from normal federal project management rules, to demonstrate hydrogen production technologies that are not projected to be cost justified. It also repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act, the primary statute that protects consumers from market manipulation and economic concentration in the electricity sector. Our nation needs to have comprehensive energy legislation enacted into law. Doing so is essential to economic recovery, job creation and environmental protection, as we rebuild our economy while continuing to improve air quality. We have paid for the lack of a balanced energy policy with blackouts and job losses that occurred when natural gas prices doubled. The conference report for H.R. 6 is a good start in easing that pressure by ensuring that fuel diversity remains at the core of U.S. energy policy. As a country, we still need to have a meaningful dialogue to find ways to combat global warming, increase vehicle fuel efficiency and reduce U.S. oil consumption. Although I voted for this legislation, I will continue to fight to ensure environmental protections are not an afterthought in addressing our energy needs.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this legislation. This is a very difficult vote for me, as I have worked for years to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. I have had little more than 24 hours to examine this 676-page conference report, but what I know about H.R. 1 is this: seniors will pay dearly for a weak benefit that undermines their traditional Medicare benefits. The benefit provided to seniors under H.R. 1 is very weak and does not even take effect until 2006. What insurance plan on earth, except one designed by Congress, would create a ``donut hole'' that is designed specifically to stop coverage for seniors when they need it? I believe that American seniors will rebel when they find out what Congress is offering them, especially if they compare it to the benefit that Members of Congress themselves receive. This conference report asks seniors to pay a monthly premium of $35, which is in addition to their existing Medicare premium ($66.60 per month in 2004). Additionally, seniors will pay the first $250 of their drug costs each year, after which Medicare would then start paying 75% of drug costs. But as seniors' drug costs increase, the benefit disappears. When total annual drug costs reach $2,250, government support would stop. Seniors would be responsible for the next $2,850 in drug costs. Only when their drug bill for the year reached $5,100 would Medicare begin paying 95% of all further costs. This, Mr. Speaker, is the infamous ``donut hole'' into which thousands of unexpecting seniors will fall each year. In their effort to create legislation that seems to cover every senior, but actually does not, this legislation eliminates coverage when seniors need help paying for drugs. Even worse, this gap increases to over $5,000 by the year 2013. Seniors will be angry--justifiably--when they begin to understand this donut hole and the deceptive nature of the drug benefit. They might ask why it is there. Some will answer that it was necessary in order to fit the benefit inside the $400 billion budget. This is true, but only because this legislation does not take any action to address the high cost of prescription drugs. A more generous benefit could have been created for seniors had the Republican leadership chosen to take some action to increase the affordability of prescription drugs. Under the conference report, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is prohibited by law from leveraging the buying power of 40 million Medicare beneficiaries to get drugs at lower prices for Medicare, just as the Veterans Administration does for 25.8 million American veterans, including 252,791 veterans in Kansas. Secretary of HHS Tommy Thompson told me two days before the vote that he would gladly exercise authority to negotiate lower prices if he had it. But the bill specifically denied him that authority. Many people covered by insurance are able to get a better price due to the fact that they can band together and demand discounts from manufacturers. Additionally, this conference report fails to allow seniors to reimport medicine from industrialized countries where drugs are significantly cheaper. This despite the fact that a majority of the House approved this concept in passing H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act, by a bipartisan vote of 243-186, on July 25, 2003. H.R. 1 contains a provision allowing Canada-only reimportation, but added a ``poison pill'' requiring the Secretary of HHS to certify reimportation--something that Secretary Thompson has repeatedly said he will not do. Americans should not have to travel to Canada to obtain reasonably priced drugs that in many cases were developed in part with U.S. tax dollars by U.S. companies and manufactured in U.S.-certified facilities. This policy would save American seniors significantly over the next ten years, and remove the unfair situation in which American seniors often pay double or even more for the same drugs than seniors in other industrialized nations. The legislation includes several other objectionable provisions. The provisions allowing for premium support will undermine the Medicare program. Although promoted as a ``demonstration,'' up to 7 million beneficiaries could be forced to participate starting in 2010. Under premium support, private plans will be allowed to offer health and drug benefits to attract low-cost young and healthy seniors from Medicare, leaving older and sicker seniors behind. The seniors left in Medicare will see their costs rise, forcing more seniors out of the program. This is called by some the ``Medicare death spiral,'' and it is proof that the conference report puts the profits of pharmaceutical and insurance companies ahead of the needs of our seniors and the disabled. The H.R. 1 conference report contains drastic cuts to our nation's cancer care system. This legislation will deprive America's cancer care system of $1 billion a year. A cut like this will be devastating to cancer care. If this happens, many cancer centers will close, others will have to admit fewer patients, and still others will lay off oncology nurses and other critical support staff. Legislation intended to increase access to prescription drug coverage will do the opposite for cancer patients, reducing their ability to get needed cancer care. Mr. Speaker, today I am forced to vote against this flawed bill, despite the fact that this legislation includes important payment increases for Medicare providers. I regret that these needed payments were included in this legislation in order to build support for this inadequate benefit. I have long supported adequate funding for Medicare providers in Kansas, and I have supported legislation in this Congress and previous Congresses that would erase the cuts approved in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. Additionally, I signed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3549, introduced by Rep. Baron Hill, legislation that would provide payment increases for doctors, hospitals, home health providers and others who need and deserve adequate Medicare payments. These provisions were included in the larger H.R. 1 and should be enacted now, separately. If this legislation, despite its great flaws and incomplete benefit, is signed into law, I will continue to fight for needed changes. And I will do all that I can to ensure that the Medicare prescription drug benefit represents what seniors need and expect.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commend a remarkable man who lives in Leawood, Kansas, in the Third Congressional District. Charles Lewis, III, has served as the golf pro at Mission Hills Country Club for more than 25 years, in addition to his many other services to the Kansas City community. Unfortunately, for the people of Kansas City, Charles recently announced his plans to retire. On September 14, 1960, Charles Lewis, who was competing in his first U.S. Amateur tournament, beat Jack Nicklaus at the St. Louis Country Club, a feat which some experts have called the greatest match-play upset of the 20th century. Since he was a child, Charles Lewis has devoted much of his time and energy to golf. In addition to perfecting his own skill through practice, Charles has spent many years at the Mission Hills Country Club helping others do the same. He also serves on the advisory board of the Junior Golf Foundation of Greater Kansas City, an organization that has introduced more than 3,000 children to the game. I commend Charles Lewis, III on this 20th day of November 2003 for his incredible skill and dedication to sharing his passion for this exciting game, and place into the Record an article from the Kansas City Star detailing his achievements. [From the Kansas City Star, June 4, 2000] Local Pro Once Beat Nicklaus (By Howard Richman) On a wall in his Mission Hills Country Club pro-shop office, Charles Lewis III displays one of his most prized possessions, a portrait of Jack Nicklaus. Forty years ago this summer, Lewis stunned the golf universe when he owned Nicklaus, the man who has been called the greatest golfer in history. Nicklaus will be in town Tuesday to play in the Children's Mercy Hospital Golf Classic at Blue Hills Country Club. But one sultry, unforgettable afternoon, Lewis knocked off Nicklaus in what some experts have called the greatest match- play upset of the 20th century. It was Sept. 14, 1960. The site: St. Louis Country Club. In anticipation of large galleries, ropes kept the spectators on the outside looking in, which was a good thing because this U.S. Amateur tournament had taken on the feel of a major professional championship. Lewis, who was born in Miami, Okla., and raised in Little Rock, Ark., was participating in his first U.S. Amateur. A 19-year-old unknown, Lewis seemed to handle his first major event as if it were a scramble with some friends back home at The Country Club of Little Rock. Lewis won his first three match-play matches, rarely in jeopardy through any of them. Although he had no real big- time-event background, Lewis knew he was prepared for this moment. ``As a kid, I'd go play on my dad's course (his father was the head pro at the country club),'' Lewis said. ``Sometimes there wouldn't be anybody out there. I'd play a variety of shots. I'd go around trees. Under them. Over them. I had no fear of hitting shots.'' Lewis had to face his fear, if he had any, in the fourth round at St. Louis Country Club. Lewis was about to go head to head with Nicklaus, the defending Amateur champion and runner-up to Arnold Palmer in the U.S. Open just a few months earlier. In the morning's third round, Nicklaus shot a 31 on the front side on the way to a 6 and 5 drubbing of Phil Rodgers. In his early match, Lewis beat Connecticut amateur champion Dick Sideowf 6 and 4. Then it was time for Lewis to match his game against Nicklaus, who was receiving accolades in the same fashion that Tiger Woods would receive them more than 30 years later. ``He (Nicklaus) was the fair-haired boy,'' Lewis said. ``People talked about how he did things different than anybody else, how he could hit it straighter and farther, like the way they talk about Tiger. ``Me? I was the country boy. But I was never really scared. I had played a lot of golf.'' It was estimated that more than 5,000 spectators tailed Lewis and Nicklaus in their match, an impressive crowd for a non-title match. It turned out to be a match that Lewis dominated, due in part to Nicklaus' awful putting. Lewis birdied the par-4 No. 1 and went 1-up. Nicklaus bogeyed the second hole, which Lewis won. When Lewis birdied the par-5 fifth, he went 3-up. Nicklaus 3-putted No. 6. And No. 7. By the time they made the turn, Lewis was a cozy 6-up. The upset was all but sealed. ``Jack and I didn't really talk during the match,'' Lewis recalled, ``but I do remember his dad say something to me as I was walking along. He said, `You're thumping my little boy.' I'd met Jack's dad before. He was a class act. Like Jack.'' Nicklaus finally won his first hole at No. 10 but not because of anything spectacular on his part. Lewis 3-putted. Lewis, though, didn't swerve out of control. In fact, The New York Times reported that Lewis, ``under the pressure of a huge gallery, and meeting his first big test, was cool and poised.'' The match came to an early conclusion when Lewis hit his 4- wood approach at the par-5 15th onto the green. Nicklaus' second shot found the rough. Lewis birdied and closed the deal. His 5 and 3 win over Nicklaus shocked golf circles. Just last year, Golf World magazine ranked Lewis' win the greatest match-play upset of the 20th century. Nicklaus, who won the Amateur in 1961, has the fourth-best winning percentage in U.S. Amateurs of players with at least 20 wins (24-5 record). Lewis, though, prevented him from possibly winning three in a row. The only one who has done that was Woods during 1994-96. In his book, My Story, Nicklaus said this about his loss to Lewis: ``I 3-putted six times, once from near gimme range, and never had a hope against Charlie Lewis, a good golfer from Arkansas. I learned some more about controlling the psyche and about self-pacing from that experience.'' Lewis still remembers what Nicklaus said following their match. ``He said, `Good luck. . . . I hope you win it all.' I think he meant it,'' Lewis said. But Lewis couldn't win it all. He went on and won his next two matches. The sixth one was important because it earned him an invitation to the Masters. In the scheduled 36-hole semifinals, Lewis' streak was halted. He fell to Bob Gardner 2 and 1. Lewis played in two more U.S. Amateurs. But none of them matched his achievement in 1960. After serving in Vietnam with the Marines, Lewis came back, won the 1967 Arkansas Amateur, then gave the PGA Tour a shot. He thinks his best finish was 14th place, which was worth $2,200. After two years, Lewis relinquished the idea of trying to make it out there. ``His personality wasn't made for the tour,'' said Lewis' wife, Marilyn, who plays more golf than her husband. She's on the golf course five times a week. ``He could play the game,'' Marilyn said. ``But he hated going from town to town. He wanted to be somewhere where he could put his feet up and relax.'' Lewis returned to Little Rock, where a friend told him about an assistant club-pro job in Kansas City. Lewis phoned Duke Gibson, the pro at Blue Hills Country Club, and Gibson hired Lewis over the phone. Twenty-eight years ago, Lewis moved on to Mission Hills. On Tuesday, Lewis hopes to rekindle memories with Nicklaus. ``It's been years since I talked to Jack,'' Lewis said. ``We played a practice round together when I played in the Masters. I hope I get a chance to talk to him. As I said, he's a class act. But I'm sure he would have preferred to beat me. ``But that was a day I accomplished something. I saw more media than I had ever seen. I got telegrams from people I didn't even know. Next to my marriage, that (beating Nicklaus) is the greatest thrill of my life.''

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Financial Services Committee, I rise in support of H.R. 2420, the Mutual Fund Integrity and Fee Transparency Act of 2003, which I joined in cosponsoring after our committee approved it earlier this year. H.R. 2420 includes numerous provisions to help stop trading abuses involving mutual funds such as those that have been recently uncovered by State and Federal regulators. For example, it requires better disclosures of mutual fund fees and expenses to help investors compare the relative costs of funds and make more informed investment decisions, and it improves the corporate governance of mutual fund companies. Among other things, the bill requires the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to issue rules that would prevent late trades; prohibits mutual fund employees from engaging in any short-term trading of their personal shares, and allows funds to charge higher redemption fees to discourage short-term trades by others; prohibits any individual from managing both a mutual fund and a hedge fund at the same time; requires mutual funds to provide operating cost comparisons using a standard $1,000 investment as an example; requires funds to disclose the extent to which their portfolio ``turns over'' each year; requires disclosures of financial incentives provided to brokers to recommend certain funds, of how fund managers are compensated, and of the extent to which fund managers hold fund shares in their personal portfolio; requires that at least two-thirds of the directors of a mutual fund be independent; and enhances the fiduciary duty of a fund's board of directors to act on behalf of investors. I do, however, have concerns with some of the provisions that were included in the bill through adoption of today's manager's amendment. I believe that this legislation has suffered as a result of the addition of this amendment without any bipartisan consideration of its provisions. My concerns involve the following issues: The manager's amendment would require fund companies and their principals to establish a code of ethics and to disclose such code of ethics in periodic reports to shareholders. In addition to developing and making public a fund's code of ethics, the fund company is required by this section to ``disclose such code of ethics and any waivers and material violations thereof on a readily accessible electronic public information facility of such company.'' Establishing and following a code of ethics to ensure that fund companies operate in the best interests of investors is a critical step towards meaningful reform of the mutual fund industry; however, publicly disclosing waivers and material violations of codes of ethics places fund companies at unprecedented levels of liability risk, particularly if done on a ``readily accessible electronic public information facility''--e.g., a Web site. The manager's amendment requires the independent directors of a fund's board to certify, at the risk of personal liability, that a host of procedures exist for the day-to-day operations of the fund company, including: Verification that the current net asset value of any security issued by the fund company complies with the applicable securities laws; oversight of the flow of funds into and out of the securities company; ensuring investors receive applicable discounts on advertised front-end sales loads; share classes are offered in the interests of investors and ``could reasonably be an appropriate investment option for an investor''; and review and approval of the portfolio manager's compensation. This section raises serious questions about the appropriate role of the board of directors by changing the face of mutual fund company boards to act as managers of the day-to-day operations of the fund, over which they normally now have little control, with regard to actual compliance. No other board structure, for any other sort of public company, has these sorts of requirements. Given the litany of new requirements imposed on independent directors, grave concerns are already being raised about a fund's ability to find individuals willing to serve on a fund board. If fund companies are able to find individuals willing to subject themselves to new liability, the company would likely have to compensate that individual for taking on this risk--a cost that will ultimately be borne by shareholders. For example, section 201(a)(4)(A) requires the independent directors of the mutual fund (a separate company) to certify that the mutual fund's investment manager (another company) has procedures in place to verify the fund's net asset value and that there is compliance with these procedures. Net asset values are determined daily. Given the independent fund director's relationship to those who do daily pricing, independent directors would be hard pressed to comfortably provide the certifications required. I have additional concern about how independent directors of the mutual fund could certify that investors receive front-end load sales discounts when neither the fund nor their investment manager knows the identity of the investors or how to communicate with them. This is often the case when funds are sold by third party intermediaries. I am also concerned about language that requires the independent directors to certify that mutual fund share classes are designed in the interests of investors and are reasonably appropriate investment options. Directors of the fund should not be asked to assume the role of financial adviser to an investor. Another significant concern relates to independent fund director approval and certification of portfolio manager compensation. This chips away at the fundamental structure underlying the relationship between the mutual fund and its investment management company. As indicated, they are separate companies. The independent fund directors negotiate and approve the investment management contract on behalf of mutual fund investors. In this way, they control expenses for investors. They hire out expert investment management and can fire them if they don't perform. It is inappropriate for them to approve and certify approval of compensation at another company. When someone hires a company to do something, you don't usually get to approve their employees' compensation--only what you pay the company. Finally, the manager's amendment requires the mutual fund to appoint a chief compliance officer and the independent directors of the fund to approve his or her compensation. The amendment also requires the compliance officer to provide reports directly and privately to the independent fund directors. I have no problem with the fund appointing a compliance officer who ``functionally reports'' to it, but ``administratively reports'' to the investment manager. This can be worked out. But, for the same reasons cited above, I think it is improper for the independent directors of the fund to approve the compensation of someone who works for its contractor. In addition, the language of this provision could be read to require each fund to appoint its own compliance officer, when a mutual fund often manages several dozen funds. The result could be a costly, unworkable situation. Overall, H.R. 2420 is a bill is a timely and needed piece of legislation; as Consumers Union stated in a letter to Congress earlier today, it ``is an important first step in the effort toward reforming this industry and protecting the interests of millions of investors.'' I support its passage in this body today, but hope that the Senate and ultimately, a conference committee, can address the remaining issues I have outlined here.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in support of S. 1718, legislation introduced by Senator Pat Roberts and cosponsored by Senator Sam Brownback, that will designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3710 West 73rd Terrace in Prairie Village, KS, as the Senator James B. Pearson Post Office Building. Senator Roberts introduced this legislation following my introduction of an identical bill, H.R. 3255, with the cosponsorship of the entire Kansas House delegation Representatives Jim Ryun, Todd Tiahrt and Jerry Moran. I commend them for joining in this bipartisan, all-Kansas effort. Born in Nashville, Tennessee, Senator Pearson was the son of a Presbyterian minister. Raised in Virginia and educated in North Carolina, where he received a B.A. from Duke University in 1940, he fulfilled his military service requirement in Kansas, where he was a naval transport pilot during World War II, discharged with the rank of lieutenant. At the conclusion of this military service, he married a Kansan from Johnson County, to where they returned after he earned a law degree from the University of Virginia in 1950. Following 2 years of private law practice in Mission, KS, Pearson served successively as assistant Johnson County attorney, Johnson County probate judge, and State senator. In 1960, he did not seek re- election to the State senate, serving instead as campaign manager for State Attorney General John Anderson's successful campaign for governor. Appointed to the U.S. Senate in 1962 by Governor Anderson, upon the death of Andrew Schoeppel, James B. Pearson served our State with distinction from 1962 through 1978. Elected in 1962, and re-elected in 1966 and 1972, Senator Pearson was a workhorse, not a showhorse. A senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, he also rose to become ranking Republican member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. Senator Pearson represented our State during an important and turbulent era, addressing issues that included the Vietnam War, the civil rights revolution, enactment of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, America's space exploration program and deregulation of the trucking and airline industries. Senator Pearson was a leader in these and other areas, offering legislation on farm credit, aviation development, and campaign finance reform. Most importantly, though, Senator Pearson was a quiet voice of thoughtful analysis--something we could use more of in both the House and the Senate today. As he said of the Vietnam War in 1966: ``On large issues and small, we cannot hold to irrevocable and unchanging positions. There is a constant need to look at every side of every issue.'' Senator Pearson was a voice of reason and common sense during these difficult times and I am proud that his home during this Senate career was Prairie Village, which is located in the Third Congressional District of Kansas. Naming the Prairie Village Post Office after Senator James B. Pearson recognizes, in a small way, the important service he provided to Kansans for 16 years in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commend a remarkable man who lives and works in the Third Congressional District of Kansas. Van Rose, a calculus teacher and cross country coach at Shawnee Mission Northwest High School, should be recognized for his undying commitment to the students he coaches on Shawnee Mission Northwest's ``Cougars'' cross country team. On November 1, 2003, the Cougars' boys' team picked up their 10th straight state championship title in the Kansas high school 6A division. But that's only the beginning. Under his leadership, the girls' cross country team has won eight championships over the past 10 years. Combined, his teams have won more than 20 state titles since 1977. After spending countless hours coaching his team, and preparing lesson plans for his calculus students, Mr. Rose finds the time to contribute to his community. For the past 25 years, he has volunteered every summer at the PowerAde Freedom Run in downtown Lenexa, Kansas. Coach Rose is noted for his dedication to youth and his selfless attitude. Despite his obvious talents as a coach, teacher, leader, and mentor, he always gives his runners all the credit for the teams' successes. Mr. Speaker, for his dedication and selflessness, I proudly commend Coach Van Rose as he and the Cougars celebrate another victory this year as Kansas cross country state champs.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Bethel Baptist Church of Kansas City, Kansas, on reaching its 84th anniversary, which will occur on November 23rd. This church was organized in 1919 under the leadership of the fast pastor, the late Reverend Harris. While many ministers have served this church, none has meant more to the church than the current pastor, Reverend R.C. Higgs. Pastor Higgs has led Bethel Baptist Church for 43 years, over half of the years of the church's existence. During the last 84 years, the Bethel Baptist Church has helped hundreds in the church and in the community of Kansas City, Kansas. I know the House joins me in wishing Pastor Higgs and his congregants our very best on this anniversary, and for many more years of spiritual and community leadership in Kansas City and the Third Congressional District of Kansas.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees being offered by the ranking Democratic member of the financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank. As a member of that committee, I was deeply involved in the drafting and consideration of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. I was pleased to join with my colleagues, Representatives Bachus, Hooley and Biggert, in introducing this bipartisan measure. This bill was approved in subcommittee on a vote of 41-0, in full committee by a vote of 63-3 and by the full House by a vote of 392-30 with one voting present. Earlier this week, the Senate approved a similar version of this bill by 95-2. Mr. Speaker, this is the way Congress should work. This is the way our constituents want us to conduct their business. Consideration of this bill consistently has been bipartisan and thoughtful. All members of the committee with opinions and proposals on the issues raised by H.R. 2622 were able to offer amendments and participate in debate. The way in which this measure was handled made this a stronger piece of legislation than the version we introduced. I commend our committee's leadership, Chairman Oxley and Ranking Democrat Frank, for making this proposal. The instructions before us today urge the conferees to agree to provisions in the House bill that will enhance the accuracy of information which creditors, retailers and other furnishers of information provide to consumer reporting agencies. They also add new requirements that provide consumers with an additional option to correct their consumer files by disputing information directly with individual furnishers of that information. Mr. Speaker, the problems of inaccurate and incomplete information that plague the current credit reporting system are of great personal concern to those of our constituents who have suffered them. I'm sure each of us could relate instances involving constituents who have faced tremendous difficulty and aggravation in correcting inaccurate credit histories. This legislation directly addresses these very real problems faced by people every day of the year. The provisions of the motion to instruct will ensure that the new law does so meaningfully. Our credit system is the envy of every other country in the world. Our country, overall, does an excellent job of making credit available quickly and fairly to consumers and businesses. Enactment of H.R. 2622 will preserve and strengthen this system. I urge my colleagues to support the Frank motion and to support the conference report that should be before us within a few weeks.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Budget Committee and as a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, I have grown increasingly concerned over the impact that rapidly increasing federal government payments on our national debt have had upon our country's economy and upon the economic condition of individual citizens. A recent column in the Boston Globe discusses these concerns in a thoughtful and focused way; I commend to you and to my colleagues the analysis of Byron Auguste, a partner at a global management consulting firm, and Mark Strama, a technology executive and the former director of programs at Rock the Vote. They are directors of the Hope Street Group, a nonprofit organization of young business professionals. [From the Boston Globe, Nov. 3, 2003] The Biggest ``Tax'' is Debt (By Byron Auguste and Mark Strama) In recent years, much has been made over the repeal of the estate tax--or ``death tax.'' Much less attention has been paid to a far more pernicious tax--the ``debt tax''--which is bigger than the estate tax, capital gains tax, and so-called ``marriage tax'' combined. When the Democratic presidential candidates convene here on Tuesday to engage a skeptical generation of younger voters at the Rock the Vote debate, we ask them to address the debt tax as the most important issue affecting young Americans today. American taxpayers paid $332.5 billion in interest last year on the national debt. This huge payment, equal to 11 percent of the total federal budget, does not improve education, enhance homeland security, or rebuild Iraq. It merely services the $6.6 trillion (and growing) national debt. These interest payments are a ``debt tax''--a tax that drains income without producing any material benefits for taxpayers. Today's average American household pays an astounding $3,153 in taxes annually just to service the debt--about enough to lease a car for a year. These debt tax payments are required because of the fiscal irresponsibility of previous federal budgets. A government running a large national debt is like an individual running a big balance on a credit card. Most American households use credit cards, and more than half of cardholders carry over credit card debt from one month to the next. But few would go as far as the federal government currently does; today's national debt is the equivalent of a whopping $62,000 on each family's credit card. And each month, the debt is rolled over, with no plans to pay down the principal. The debt tax is likely to grow in the coming years, placing an enormous burden on tomorrow's taxpayers. Even if the national debt does not increase, projected increases in interest rates will increase the cost of borrowing money-- increasing the debt tax. But the national debt is increasing, because the government is spending beyond its means. In the past three years, federal spending has increased by 13.5 percent. Only half of this increase is attributable to the war on terrorism. And this figure does not even include the $87 billion recently requested for our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are projected to reduce revenues by $1.35 trillion. Even if interest rates remain constant, this year's budget alone will add approximately $22 billion to annual interest payments--$22 billion in debt taxes. ``Tax relief'' for today's taxpayers is, plain and simple, a tax increase for tomorrow's taxpayers. As a result these factors--rising interest rates, growing spending, and massive tax cuts--the debt tax burden will continue to mushroom. The administration's own projections show the debt growing by half through 2008. This means that in five years, the average family could be paying between $4,500 and $6,000 or more each year in debt tax alone. The problem is compounded by the impending retirement of the baby boomers, whose tax contributions will decline at precisely the same time entitlement spending to support them will explode. For younger voters, this is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. We see the impact that is about to occur, and we are the ones who are going to get crushed. It's not too late to avoid disaster, but doing so will require sustained, rigorous focus by our leaders. While many Democrats and Republicans have criticized current fiscal policies, none has introduced a plan that will solve the debt tax. The time has come for our leaders to step up to the plate. Americans understand this problem and are willing to help solve it. A recent Gallup poll revealed that by a 53 to 41 percent margin, Americans say they would rather hold down the federal deficit than lower their taxes. Each generation of Americans has had the opportunity to determine our nation's priorities. In the middle of the 20th century, our grandparents expanded higher education and homeownership. Over the past 35 years, our parents invested in fighting communism abroad and poverty at home. Will our generation have similar opportunities, or will our only choice be to service the debts of our predecessors? The debt tax is a problem with grave consequences for our future. It is a problem that won't be solved until we start talking about it. For the sake of our generation of voters, we hope the presidential candidates will start the discussion this week.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I will vote for this supplemental spending bill because I believe we have an obligation to support our troops. I am proud of our brave men and women in uniform, but I am disappointed that the President has not assembled a greater international coalition to share the cost of policing and rebuilding Iraq. American troops and taxpayers should not bear this heavy burden alone. We are spending nearly $1 billion each week and 2 to 3 American lives each day to continue this effort. Mr. Chairman, our military personnel are putting their lives on the line to maintain order in Iraq. Nearly 200 soldiers have died in bombings, ambushes and other hostile incidents since the President declared an end to major combat operations. We owe our brave men and women a deep debt of gratitude. But we also owe them a sustained diplomatic effort to ensure that our allies will share the peacekeeping burden in Iraq. I also believe it is wrong to ask the American taxpayers to bear the full financial burden of rebuilding Iraq. That is why I supported an amendment which would have converted half of the reconstruction aid to a loan. That is also the reason I have consistently urged the President to involve our allies in the reconstruction effort. We should help the Iraqi people rebuild their country. But we shouldn't do it alone. Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned about the future costs of the Iraq effort. It is imperative that the Administration provide Congress with a realistic estimate of future reconstruction costs. Congress and the American people need this information in order to assess the impact our Iraq programs will have on our 2004 budget, which is projected to be more than a half trillion dollars in deficit. Mr. Chairman, I support this legislation because I support our troops. These funds will help to ensure that our military personnel have the equipment they need to complete their mission in Iraq. But in the long run, the best thing we can do for our men and women in uniform is to more fairly share the peacekeeping burden with our allies.