Dennis Moore

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. More than 27 years ago Congress made a promise to our local school boards and State school boards, and we said to the educators across our country, you take special needs children out of our hospitals and institutions and bring them into the public schools for education, and we, Congress, will pay 40 percent of the cost of educating those children. The States and locals did. Congress did not. An unfunded Federal mandate, a promise made, a promise broken, and we are doing it again now. I voted for the No Child Left Behind Act. I think it was the right thing to do. I want accountability in our schools, and I want to leave no child behind, and I want our schools to succeed. But when we place additional requirements on our schools without adequate funding, it is another unfunded Federal mandate, and we are short $6.15 billion this year. Our educators, I talked to all of our school superintendents in our districts. We have some of the best schools in the whole country in my district, but they said, unanimously, we can do the job of educating our children, but we cannot do it without the resources when additional requirements are put on us. That is what this is about. This is not about blinking. This is not about blinking. This is about educating our children and a promise made and a promise we are about to break again. As the gentleman from Maine said, 48 of the 50 States right now are in a precarious financial position. They do not have additional money for funding. In fact, the Kansas Legislature this year was struggling to find adequate money for education in our State. And now we are talking about another unfunded Federal mandate. It should not happen. If we do this, shame on us. If we do this, we are not taking care of the resources that we proclaim so often here are important to us, and those are our children. Our children are our future. We owe them the promise that we made to them and to our educators. They can do the job of educating children, if they have the resources.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with the rest of the Kansas congressional delegation in supporting H.R. 1761, which will designate a post office in Wichita, KS, as the ``Garner E. Shriver Post Office.'' As a Kansas native, who was raised in Wichita, I well remember Congressman Garner Shriver. My father, Warner Moore, served as Sedgwick County Attorney in the 1950s and was the Democratic nominee in 1958 for the congressional seat later held by Shriver. My father came within less than 2,400 votes of defeating Representative Edward Rees, who had held the seat since first being elected in 1936. Two years later, Representative Rees retired, and my father lost a very close primary battle with William Robinson, who was defeated for the open seat by Garner Shriver, who won with a margin of over 22,000 votes. Garner Shriver served as a U.S. Representative for 16 years. He was born in Towanda, KS, in 1912; his family moved to Wichita in 1925. He graduated from University of Wichita in 1934; after postgraduate study at the University of Southern California, he graduated from Washburn University School of Law in 1940. The following year, he married Martha Jane Currier, who would be his wife for 56 years--they had three children: Kay, David, and Linda. He worked for Fox-Vlient Drug Company of Wichita from 1934-36, and taught speech at South Haven High School, of South Haven, KS, in 1936-37. Shriver joined the Navy at the outset of World War II and served 10 months in the enlisted ranks before being commissioned as lieutenant, senior grade. He was a boat group commander in the Pacific at the end of the war. Shriver agreed to run for the Kansas Legislature in 1946, because, as his wife was later quoted as saying, ``he figures he didn't have anything to lose. When we went to bed that night, we didn't know anything about elections. We woke up in the morning and he'd won by 22 votes.'' He served two terms in the Kansas House and two terms in the Kansas Senate before being elected to the House of Representatives in 1960. Senator Bob Dole, who was in Shriver's freshman class of House Members, recalled at this funeral that he ``was known as a quiet and effective legislator and someone who kept his word. He was an exemplary husband and father.'' Former Representative Dan Glickman, who defeated Shriver in 1976, recalled him as ``one how helped his district and state a lot, while being very congenial, civilized; not noisy, not polarizing.'' Garner Shriver rose to be the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Foreign Operations Subcommittee; he also was one of the original appointees to the House Budget Committee upon its establishment. Low key and moderately conservative, he was an active supporter of medical benefits for World War II veterans and for combat pay for Vietnam-era servicemembers. Early in his career, he served on a House subcommittee that originated the Civil Rights Act of 1964; his family still treasures one of the pens used by President Johnson in signing the measure into law. As the Whichita Eagle's obituary put it, Garner Shriver ``embraced politics, seeing public service as a mandate for living a truly Christian life.'' As the Shriver family's minister and eulogist at his funeral, the Reverend George Gardner said, ``Garner Shriver was always mindful of the people. They were not his people but God's people. And he thought they must be served with generosity, kindness and compassion.'' Follwing his defeat in 1976, Shriver remained in Washington, DC, until 1982, working as the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee's minority staff director and general counsel. After concluding that service, he returned to private law practice in Wichita, where he dead in 1998. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that we come together today to commemorate the life and service of Garner Shriver with the naming of this post Office. As Reverend Gardner said at his funeral, ``Garner Shriver came to us with energy and compassion and from his life we were called to a higher standard of principle. In him, we saw the value of public service as he revealed to us the great privilege of living in America.''

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank and congratulate the Johnson County Christmas Bureau for their great work in helping the needy in our community. The Johnson County Christmas Bureau is a nonprofit organization that has been bringing Christmas joy and holiday assistance to thousands in the Kansas City area for nearly forty years. Working out of a donated office with donated storage space, every year the Bureau puts together a ``Christmas shop'' for the disadvantaged, where each eligible family member can get a gift, a new item of clothing, personal items, used coats and a wide array of groceries. Each individual can choose his or her items, preserving the dignity of the family while bringing joy to those in need. The Bureau has received most of its funding through individuals, schools and church organizations--they strive to keep their overhead low so that more money may be used to provide a Merry Christmas to the needy. I want to recognize the great contribution that the Johnson County Christmas Bureau has made to the Kansas City community and to the many lives which they have brightened. Last year, the Bureau helped over eight thousand families and this year they expect to serve many more. The many people who volunteer numerous hours from their busy lives for the Christmas Bureau, just to see the joy on the faces of others, remind us how fulfilling charity can be. It is my pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to place in the Congressional Record this tribute to the good works of the Johnson County Christmas Bureau.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 660. It is being promoted by some in Congress as the silver bullet that will help small businesses get health insurance, but I believe that this legislation puts consumers at risk without helping small business owners get health insurance. Many of my concerns about AHPs mirror those of Sandy Praeger, the Kansas Insurance Commissioner. I will quote extensively from her remarks about AHPs made before the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee on February 5, 2003. AHPs will not reduce the cost of health insurance for small businesses. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that H.R. 660 would actually drive up the cost of coverage for 20 million individuals--80 percent of small employers and their families who are now covered under employer-based health insurance plans. The results of this legislation could actually make coverage less affordable for the vast majority of small business workers who now have coverage. A recent study released by National Small Business United (NSBU) found that AHPs would result in more than 1 million more uninsured and cause premiums to skyrocket for the sickest workers. Additionally, H.R. 660 will hurt those who most need health coverage, and those who employ them. H.R. 660 could actually hurt those who most need health coverage by allowing AHPs to ``cherry pick'' only the healthiest, cheapest-to-insure individuals to participate in their plans. Most States prohibit this kind of health insurance discrimination, but H.R. 660 would preempt these anti-discrimination measures in most States, allowing AHPs to discriminate against those who most need coverage. Commissioner Praeger's remarks illustrate how H.R. 660 would undermine State reforms in this regard and leave sicker and higher risk employees out in the cold. In order to keep costs low, AHPs would have an incentive to target the people who are the least costly to insure--healthy, young people who rarely access health services. By giving AHPs the power to charge higher premiums for less healthy groups and the discretion to offer narrower benefits, these bills will allow AHPs to deter less healthy groups from enrolling. Small businesses that employ older, disabled or chronically ill individuals would be forced to pay more out-of-pocket or left behind altogether. As noted above, 80 percent of small employers will be left out and will likely see their premiums increase as the State-regulated health insurance market loses its healthy individuals to AHPs, leaving sicker and older individuals in the State market. State consumer protections, such as external appeals of disputed claims, would be ignored as well as other guaranteed benefits such as maternity care, mammograms, mental health treatment, or diabetes. For many years, I have supported efforts to enact a strong patients' bill of rights that would extend consumer protections to all Americans. This legislation, however, would expose millions of workers--in both small and large businesses--who now enjoy the advantages of State consumer protections into plans that are completely exempt from those protections. Fundamentally, AHPs would completely destroy the State insurance market. As Commissioner Praeger stated: The AHP legislation in Congress would undermine state reforms and once again fragment the market. Each association would create its own risk pool that, due to the benefits provided, types of business in the association, or area serviced, could have significantly lower risk than the general market. While the bill does make some effort to reduce ``cherry picking'' the NAIC believes the provisions would be inadequate. Commissioner Praeger goes on to say: This self-selection is extremely disruptive to the marketplace and will create a very unstable situation in an already fragile small group market, likely reducing the number of insurers willing to offer coverage in the general market. Insurance is of little use unless the costs of caring for the relatively few can be distributed among the many who are healthy. AHPs would exempt health insurers from State rules that are needed to effectively govern health insurance companies. AHPs would also be exempt from State solvency laws and oversight and subject to inadequate standards. The American Academy of Actuaries has said that the solvency standards for AHPs contained in H.R. 660 are inadequate, and Commissioner Praeger's testimony underscores these concerns. Her testimony states that the solvency standards under the bill are ``woefully inadequate'' and goes on to predict ``If a nationwide AHP were offered to a large association, a capital surplus of only $2 million would result in disaster.'' Supporters of H.R. 660 claim that the Department of Labor has sufficient resources to oversee the new plans and prevent insolvencies and fraud. Commissioner Praeger believes that this is not the case. She notes that ``The Department of Labor has neither the resources nor the expertise to regulate insurance products.'' More than 500 organizations--including many of the major consumer and health care provider organizations--have voice their opposition to this legislation. The legislation is also strongly opposed by the Nation's Republican and Democratic governors, attorneys general and insurance commissioners. Additionally, many in the small business community oppose H.R. 660, including the National Small Business United (NSBU), which has voiced its opposition to this legislation because it would hurt, not help, many small employers. They cite a recent study by Mercer found that AHPs would result in more than 1 million more uninsured and cause premiums to skyrocket for the sickest workers. I do understand that small employers are clamoring for relief from the high cost of health care, and I support efforts to improve individuals' and small businesses' ability to obtain quality health insurance. I have introduced H.R. 1937, the Small Business Health Insurance Availability Act. This bill would do several things to help uninsured Americans who work for small businesses get adequate health care. My legislation would establish a tax credit toward the purchase of health insurance for all small employers who choose to offer it. The credit will reimburse 20 percent of health insurance costs, up to $400 per year for individuals and $1000 for family coverage. Businesses can get an additional 10 percent tax credit (up to 30 percent total) if they join in a Health Benefit Purchasing Coalition, which provides small employers a way to pool resources, negotiate collectively with insurers, and administer health plans for small employer groups. In order to foster innovation on the State level, the bill creates State grant programs for initiatives that expand health insurance to the uninsured through market innovations. I believe that we must help uninsured Americans to obtain health insurance while not putting individual insurance markets or consumers at risk. My legislation, in contrast to the very controversial AHP proposals, could be enacted into law immediately without disrupting health insurance markets or regulatory structures. It would also preserve the rights and protections of consumers in States and ensure that the business of health insurance remain regulated on the State level. It would also give small business owners, like their big business competitors, the opportunity to band together and bargain for better insurance rates and terms.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to this legislation and my support for the Blue Dog substitute, offered by Rep. Thompson, which we have not been allowed to debate on the House floor today, despite support on both sides of the Capitol. We in Congress have been talking for years now about the necessity of adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. We know, as seniors know, that this talk has been cheap and it is imperative that a compromise be reached this year. The Senate has been proceeding in a bipartisan way toward a compromise that adds a substantial, but not perfect, benefit to Medicare and protects the long-term integrity of this social insurance program. Instead of following the Senate's lead and working toward a compromise that will improve Medicare, a wildly popular and successful program, the House Republican leadership has chosen instead of add provisions to this legislation that attack the foundation of the Medicare program. The bill does not include a federal fallback if private plans choose not to offer a benefit. The experience that my constituents have had with Medicare+Choice show that private health care plans are at best an unstable partner for Medicare, and financial analysts have consistently publicly questioned whether ``drug only'' plans will ever be offered. For these reasons, it is absolutely vital that Medicare provide a viable and guaranteed fallback for all Medicare beneficiaries. Additionally, H.R. 1 would transform Medicare, beginning in 2010, from a defined-benefit program to a defined-contribution program. This provision would gradually shift enormous costs onto people when they are sick and most in need of care, and destroy the fabric of this program that has served seniors well for nearly 50 years. The Senate has crafted legislation that has broad support among Senators across the ideological spectrum. This legislation has won the support of both President Bush and Senator Ted Kennedy. Together with Representative Thompson and the Blue Dog Caucus, I am supporting legislation that uses the framework of the Senate compromise and improves on it, making it a much stronger bill. The Thompson plan includes a provision phasing in employer contributions to they will count toward the out-of-pocket limit for catastrophic coverage, thus giving employers an incentive to keep offering retiree benefits. The substitute guarantees a Medicare fall-back plan for all areas that do not have two private plans available. It also gives relief to state Medicaid plans by making Medicare the primary payer for all individuals eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. Finally, the Blue Dog substitute includes language that will reduce the high cost of prescription drugs by allowing Americans to reimport drugs from Canada and speeding approval of generic drugs. The House bill falls short on several other fronts as well. It ignores the needs of community and teaching hospitals, meaning that hospitals in my district stand to lose over $11 million in denied inflation updates. Kansas teaching hospitals, like KU Med, would additionally lose out to the tune of $3.9 million in 2003 and $21 million over five years due to the Federal Government's failure to help pay for the excess costs of medical education. The Thompson substitute provides an adequate inflation update for all hospitals. Finally, H.R. 1 would cut $16 billion over 10 years from oncology services. Cancer patients all over the country will have to pay for provisions in this bill that sharply cut funding for cancer-fighting drugs and allow Medicare to continue to underpay for costs associated with providing chemotherapy services. I cannot support the Democratic substitute because I believe that it is simply too expensive. I voted against the most recent tax cut because I believe that it is irresponsible for Congress to run up bills for our children to pay, and the Democratic substitute, although a much more robust benefit for our seniors, is simply more than our country can afford at this time. The Senate bill and the Blue Dog substitute both hew to the budget agreed to by the House and Senate. Neither bill is perfect, but I believe that the Thompson substitute builds a strong foundation for a prescription drug benefit on which we can build in future years.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 8, Permanent Death Tax Repeal Act and in support of the Democratic substitute. I have long been a supporter of providing estate tax relief to American families, small business owners, and farmers who have worked their entire lives to transfer a portion of their estates upon their death. I have also been an advocate, however, for ensuring that we transfer to our children and grandchildren a healthy economy and a government that maintains its commitment to Social Security and Medicare. In the last Congress, I voted to repeal the estate tax and later voted to override President Clinton's veto of that legislation. Again, in the 107th Congress, I voted to repeal the estate tax as a stand- alone measure and later voted for President Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut, which contained a provision to phase out and ultimately repeal the estate tax. When I voted for the president's tax bill last year, I did so with his assurance that we would have the money to pay for it without dipping into the Social Security surplus. Unfortunately, due to the recession and the war on terrorism, the budget surpluses projected last year did not materialize and we are now borrowing money from Social Security Trust Funds to pay for even our most basic needs including the war on terrorism. While I agree that we should fix provisions of last year's tax cut to increase certainty in the tax code that will help people plan for their financial future, we should also make sure that we are not borrowing money--particularly from the Social Security Trust Funds--to pay for these cuts while we are simultaneously trying to enhance our national security needs. We should also ensure that we aren't raising other taxes to pay for provisions that are, quite frankly, political in nature and have nothing to do with ensuring that the estate tax burden is reduced on our small businesses and farms. For example, Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill contains a hidden tax on all decedents. By fully repealing the estate tax, this bill would have the effect of repealing a provision in the code, referred to as the ``step up in basis,'' that protects heirs from paying capital gains on estates. Anyone who has ever sold a ``capital'' asset, such as real estate, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, knows that cost basis is what the gain or loss on the sales price is measured against. Generally speaking, cost basis is the purchase price of property subject to certain adjustments upward or downward. For example, if property was purchased in 1950 at a cost of $10,000 and sold in 2001 at $100,000, an individual would have a taxable capital gain of $90,000. The step-up basis interacts with estates such that when this property passes by reason of death, the heir inherits the asset with a new cost basis equivalent to the market value of the asset on the date of the benefactor's death. Taking the example above, if the property were transferred in 2001 at a value of $100,000 and the heir sold the property in 2006 for $120,000, the heir would only have a taxable capital gain of $20,000 instead of $110,000. Should this bill become law, an owner of farmland, stocks, mutual funds, or even a personal residence would have lost the opportunity to pass the asset to the next generation without passing along the owner's cost basis, thus reducing the future capital gains bill that will have to be paid when the heirs sell the asset. In short, this amounts to a tax increase on all estates due simply to the increased cost basis of the estate. I believe there is a more responsible way to provide estate tax relief to our small business owners and farmers. The substitute will provide substantial and immediate relief by increasing a family's exclusion from $1 million to $6 million. It would also preserve the step-up basis provisions in current law so heirs to an estate do not receive a large capital gains bill as they would if Congress repealed the estate tax entirely. All of these changes would take place immediately. The Treasury Department estimates that increasing the estate credit to $6 million would exempt approximately 99 percent of all estates without the dramatic loss in revenues. Mr. Speaker, the substitute is also paid for. In this environment when our budget is in crisis, it is critically important that we do not continue to drown ourselves in red ink. The majority's bill would cost over $60 billion a year, at a time when we are running a $400 billion annual deficit. We simply cannot afford to borrow even more money to provide additional tax cuts. Again, I have supported previous efforts to provide estate tax relief because, in the past, we have been able to afford it. I am concerned, however, that the total costs of these bills will continue to drive our nation into debt, and reduce our ability to deal with the long-term challenges facing Social Security and Medicare. Until we deal with the long term financial problems facing Social Security, we need to be very careful about any tax or spending bills that would place a greater burden on the budget in the next decade, effectively transferring these costs and burdens to our children and grandchildren.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1528 and in support of the Democratic substitute. I strongly support the underlying purpose of this bill--protecting taxpayers and increasing the fairness, efficiency and confidentiality of our tax system. I intended to vote in favor of this bill. Unfortunately, the majority party has attached an unrelated provision to this bill that will make it more difficult for thousands of working Americans to obtain health coverage. Mr. Speaker, under the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program, workers who lose their jobs as a result of competition from foreign trade can receive a tax credit for 65 percent of health insurance premiums for the taxpayer and his or her family. The TAA program also contains consumer protections designed to ensure that everyone eligible for the tax credit can actually claim it, regardless of age or health status. Like many of my colleagues, I have supported free trade legislation in part because of the protections the TAA program provides for workers who are adversely affected by foreign trade. Now the majority party is seeking to repeal TAA protections in the name of ``consumer choice.'' In reality, the controversial consumer choice provisions of H.R. 1528 will allow individual to waive TAA consumer protections, which will, in turn, give insurers the leverage necessary to ``cherry pick'' healthy workers while excluding those most in need of care. Only young and healthy workers are likely to take advantage of this provision. The end result will be that older workers and workers with health problems will be left without any options for affordable health coverage. Further, this provision will undermine efforts currently underway in many states to negotiate health coverage for thousands of TAA-eligible workers. I am truly saddened that the majority party has inserted this extraneous provision in a good and otherwise non-controversial bill. The health care protections included in the TAA program were formulated through months of bipartisan negotiation and compromise. In a single partisan act, the majority party has reneged on its promises and placed the health coverage of thousands of our most vulnerable families in jeopardy. Mr. Speaker, I support the underlying purpose of this bill. In addition to reforming the penalty and interest sections of the Internal Revenue Code, the bill also provides new safeguards against unfair IRS collection procedures and improves the efficiency of tax administration. More specifically, the bill will grant a first-time penalty waiver to individual taxpayers in cases where minor negligence results in liability that is disproportionate and unreasonable. This legislation will also enhance the efficiency of the tax system by allowing electronic filers until April 30th to file their individual income tax returns. Additionally, the legislation will protect taxpayer confidentiality by limiting IRS inspection of tax return preparers and allowing taxpayers to consult with the National Taxpayer Advocate on a confidential basis. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the substitute which contains the taxpayer protections of the base bill while preserving TAA consumer protections for working Americans. Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. McDermott

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1308, a measure brought to the floor by House Republican leadership with little intention of truly helping America's working families. On June 9, I sponsored important bipartisan legislation that would help each and every parent pay their bills during this time of financial uncertainty. My bill, H.R. 2392, would restore the child tax credit to working families; it is the House version of a bill passed by the Senate last week, on a vote of 94-2, supported by our Senators Roberts and Brownback. If the House passes my bill without amendment, it would immediately go to the President for his signature. President Bush has asked Congress to act on this bill now. My bill would fully restore those provisions of the President's tax cut that were stripped out by the House leadership in order to make room for a larger dividend and capital gains tax cut. This bill would restore the child tax credit to the families of over 12 million children nationwide, 1 million of whom have parents serving in the military. In Kansas, this bill would assist over 162,000 children and their families who have received this credit since 1997--a credit which was taken from them by the leadership in the House. These families earn between $10,500 and $26,625 per year. They work hard to raise their children--and helping hard-working families make ends meet and raise their kids is the goal of the child tax credit. This bill is not about welfare. This bill is about helping working families who pay taxes to receive tax relief. This bill is about fairness for all families and children. My bill is about our priorities; and our priorities reflect our values. Taking the child tax credit away from hard-working Kansans doesn't represent Kansas values. It wasn't compassionate. It wasn't fair. And it still isn't right. My bill will help parents struggling to make ends meet. They will use the additional $400-per-child tax cut to buy clothes or shoes or books for their kids--helping their families and providing an immediate boost to our economy at the same time. The House leadership hopes to appear to be assisting our most needy families when, in fact, their real goal is to kill this bill. Indeed, the Senate has already moved to bring relief and President Bush has called for quick House action on a measure to restore this portion of the child credit. In vote after vote this week, my colleagues and I who support helping working families have given House leaders the opportunity to follow the Senate; heed the President's call; and bring up my bill. They have repeatedly said--and voted--no. Instead, they have decided to slow and muddy this process by considering a budget-busting bill that will cause a tedious conference committee; thus, serving only a defeat any attempt to bring relief to working families across America. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Thomas proposal costs $82 million and is irresponsibly laden with goodies and extras, in an attempt to slow this process. My alternative offers clean language mirroring the Senate legislation, in accordance with the President's request, and a $10 million paid-for price tag. This is Washington politics-as-usual at its worst. I applaud the effort underway to defeat the rule on this bill so that either the Senate bill or Castle-Tanner-Moore can be taken from the desk, considered, passed and immediately sent to the President for enactment. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to consider their values and priorities when voting on this legislation. Passage will slow the process to help alleviate fiscal pressures endured by families across the nation; rejection of the Thomas bill will be a step forward in the flight for hard-working families who need and deserve this support.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to the House-Senate agreement on H.R. 2, the so-called Growth and Jobs Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. The only growth this conference report will ensure is the most dramatic growth in our national debt in this nation's history. It is ironic that as soon as the House votes on this legislation, we will adjourn for the Memorial Day District Work Period to allow the Senate to rubber stamp an increase in the debt ceiling of almost $1 trillion dollars, with no discussion by this House. For me, this is not a partisan issue. I voted for the President's $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001 because I believed it was the right thing to do. At that time CBO projected our surplus over ten years at $5.6 trillion. I still believe it was the right thing to do then. But that was then. This is now. We are no longer in revenue surplus mode. Now we are in deficit mode. And the $350 billion tax cut passed by Congress will now go straight to our bottom line--the $6.4 trillion national debt. In fact, the Senate will have to increase the debt limit by $984 billion in order to pass this tax cut. This tax cut is being paid for with borrowed money. And, every penny of this tax cut will be paid for by our children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose tax cuts. I oppose borrowing money to pay for tax cuts. We are running the largest deficits in history and compiling a debt whose interest payment consumes almost 18 percent of every tax dollar collected. I call this a ``debt tax'' and this is the only tax that can never be repealed. The debt tax costs our country $1 billion per day and accounts for one of the largest expenditures by our government, third only to Social Security and national defense. And I submit that by passing this bill, we will be passing the largest tax increase--in the form of the debt tax--in history. The best way to ensure that we, as well as our children and our grandchildren, are all overtaxed for the rest of our lives, is to keep borrowing money and running up our debt. Our children will be forced to pay ever higher taxes just to pay the increasing interest on the debt we will incur today. Under the majority's budget, the debt tax will consume more than twenty percent of taxes just to pay interest on our national debt by the end of the decade. It is irresponsible for us to pass a tax cut for ourselves today that leaves the bill to our children and grandchildren in the form of a crushing national debt. In his State of the Union Address, President Bush told us, ``This country has many problems. We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents and other generations.'' As a proud grandfather who wants to leave a better future for my grandchildren, I enthusiastically applauded that statement. Unfortunately, our current budget policies and this growth plan will only grow our national debt and pass the bill on to future generations. With respect to this bill being a jobs plan, I submit that in its zeal to pass a tax cut, any tax cut that adheres to an arbitrary number, the majority has crafted a bill guaranteed to cost us jobs in the future. Mr. Speaker, this bill contains so many gimmicks, with phase-ins and phase-outs, that it defies comprehension and makes it impossible for any responsible business or individual to plan for the future. For example, this bill helps married individuals and families by expanding the lower bracket, increasing the child tax credit and eliminating the marriage penalty--but only for 2 years. But all of these good policies (many of which I have supported in the past) will revert back to current law in 2005. It helps businesses expand, grow and create jobs by increasing the code's expensing and depreciation provisions--but these good, pro jobs policies disappear in 2004 and 2005, respectively. ``Why?'' you ask, do these pro-family and pro-jobs provisions disappear after 1 or 2 years? To make room for a proposal that does nothing to create jobs--an ill-conceived dividend reduction proposal that will only concentrate capital in the hands of shareholders without providing any incentives for businesses to create new jobs. I believe that the President's call to eliminate the so-called double taxation of dividends is a goal toward which we should all work; however, this Congress should consider this proposal in the context of broad individual and corporate tax reform after we've gotten our fiscal house in order. I urge my colleagues to vote against this tax proposal and instead work together on a bipartisan basis to achieve true tax reform, reduction and simplification in the context of a new economic plan to get our country moving again.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill). He has been an absolute leader on this whole question about fiscal responsibility with the Blue Dog coalition. I come at this from maybe a somewhat different perspective than some of my other colleagues, even the Blue Dogs. Two years ago, President Bush was fresh into office and the economy had started to slow down, even before he came into office, really in President Clinton's term. President Bush, in my mind, is not responsible for the slowing economy. Again, it started happening before he came into office. And he proposed to Congress an idea that he thought might keep the faltering economy from slowing even more, and that was a $1.6 trillion tax cut over 10 years. I was a little more conservative than the President; and I thought that, not knowing what was going to happen in the future as far as revenue collections, maybe a $1 trillion tax cut over 10 years might be more prudent. Anyway, the House of Representatives passed the $1.6 trillion requested by the President, and it went to the Senate, and the Senate worked their magic, and it came back at $1.35 trillion over 10 years. The President had requested $1.6 trillion. The bill before him was $1.35 trillion, and he said he will accept that in the spirit of compromise. I thought to myself, I would prefer a $1 trillion tax cut, but if the President is willing to compromise, so am I. So I voted for the President's $1.35 trillion tax cut, and I still think it was the right thing to do, contrary to what some of my Democratic colleagues say. I still think it was the right thing to do, and I think maybe it slowed the slowdown that had started already to happen and helped us from going even deeper, deeper into a morass. But at that time according to the Congressional Budget Office, which is a nonpartisan institution that advises both sides of the aisle, we had a $5.6 trillion projected surplus over the next 10 years, $5.6 trillion projected surplus. So when I voted for that tax cut, we were in surplus mode. Mr. Speaker, now we are in deficit mode, and again I do not hold the President responsible for that or the other side of the aisle responsible for that. A slowing economy when the President came in was put in an absolute tailspin by September 11, and nobody except the horrible people who perpetrated that injustice against our country are responsible for that. And some corporate fraud and activities on the corporate level, national level, really shook investor confidence in our markets, I think, and also hurt our economy. But, again, I voted for that tax cut 2 years ago, but now we are in a different situation. Instead of surplus mode now, we are in deficit mode. When I look at the situation now, I think we need to start thinking about how American families live, and they live by three simple rules that are not written down. They are just common sense. Number one, do not spend more money than they make; number two pay off their debts; and, number three, invest in basics in the future. Congress for a number of years exceeded their revenue income by more spending, and we accumulated a multitrillion dollar debt, presently $6.4 trillion. We have heard the gentlemen from Texas and Tennessee and Indiana and some of the other Blue Dogs who talked here tonight talk about what that means to us, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) had talked about what we coined the debt tax, d-e-b-t. Not death tax. Debt tax, which is the interest paid to finance our national debt. It is the only tax, the debt tax, that can never be repealed. All we can do is pay it off if we can get in a financial position to do that, and I am very concerned about that because the debt tax presently is almost $1 billion a day. In terms of relative expenditures by category in our Federal Government, the only expenditure category bigger than the interest on our national debt is Social Security. This debt tax is even more. It costs our Government more than national defense. And when we get to that point, something is desperately wrong. We need to rethink our priorities here. Again, when I voted for the President's tax cut 2 years ago, we were in surplus mode. Now we are in deficit mode. The President's budget that was proposed for fiscal year 2004 had a built-in $300 billion debt. Again, I am not holding him responsible for that, but when we request now a $726 billion tax cut that we cannot pay for, that we are going to have to borrow if we pass this tax cut and has already been said by the other speakers, do my colleagues know who is going to pay for that? Our children and our grandchildren. That is absolutely wrong. I speak to a lot of college and high school government classes, and when I talk about the virtues of fiscal responsibility in terms of keeping interest rates low, sometimes people's eyes start to glaze over until I tell them about this and who is going to have to pay for this debt, and they look nervously at each other and say ``we will,'' and I say to them they should be angry at their parents and grandparents for leaving them that kind of responsibility. They do not deserve that. It is our debt, and we should pay it. To borrow money, to borrow money to pay for tax cuts now, is irresponsible, it is reckless, and it is wrong. It is irresponsible and wrong, and we should not be doing that. I was in Miami in the airport about 5 weeks ago standing behind a man in line, a long line; and we started talking. I asked him what he did. He said he was a retired CPA. His wife is working; she is still working. He found out I was in Congress. He said, Congressman, I hope what you will do is vote for the elimination of corporate dividends. I went through a short 2 minutes of what I said here tonight about fiscal responsibility and not saddling our kids and grandkids with additional debt. He said, Congressman, I will tell you what. Why do we not just take care of today, and let them worry about tomorrow? Unfortunately, I think that is what a lot of people in this country, and I hope not that many, think. Some polls I have seen said people do not want more tax cuts now. They want fiscal responsibility. They would rather see money used, any surpluses that may be generated in the future, used to pay down our debt and to reduce and eliminate our deficits. We have got to get our financial house back in order, because we cannot survive. As the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) said, the sustainability is not there if we do not get back into a fiscally responsible position. Other speakers have already mentioned, and I am going to end with this, the baby boomers will soon start to retire in about 2011 through 2012; and if right now we have a $6.4 trillion national debt, which is the figure, in fact slightly in excess of that, and we add almost another $1 trillion to it in the next week, at least increasing the debt limit that much, and if it goes up proportionately in the next several years, we are going to be well over $10 trillion in debt by the time the baby boomers retire. That is not sustainable. That is a recipe for disaster for this great country that we love and that we live in, and we should not let that happen to America, we should not let that happen to our kids and grandkids. Fiscal responsibility and a return to fiscal responsibility is absolutely necessary. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reluctantly support H.R. 1000, and to express my reasons for voting against the Miller-Rangel substitute to this legislation. During my time in Congress, I have strongly supported legislation that would help employees prepare for their retirement. Pension reform legislation affects all working Americans. As such, both parties in Congress have a responsibility to work together in a thoughtful and conscientious manner on this issue. To that end, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1776, the bipartisan Pension Preservation and Savings Expansion Act of 2003, which expands savings options, empowers employees to take control of their retirement plan investments and gives workers substantial new rights to avoid over- concentration in the stock of their own company. By modifying the rules that apply to retirement plans, the Pension Preservation and Savings Expansion Act provides workers with needed control over their retirement plan investments while preserving the opportunity for employee ownership. Through new diversification rights, new disclosure requirements and new tax incentives for retirement education, this legislation would help employees achieve retirement security. I have serious concerns with the substitute before us today. Unfortunately, the substitute overreacts to the unfortunate circumstances surrounding Enron's historic bankruptcy. Congress has a duty to the American people to enact responsible legislation that will benefit employees rather than impose new administrative burdens on millions of retirement plans. The substitute would thwart bipartisan efforts to reduce administrative burdens on employers who voluntarily sponsor retirement plans by imposing new, expensive rules on such plans. The substitute's provision that would require retirement plans to insure against vaguely defined plan asset losses would increase the cost of these retirement plans, creating a disincentive for employers to offer their employees a pension plan. Additionally, under the substitute, a plan participant is allowed to divest of company stock held in an account after just one year. This one-year diversification provision runs the significant risk of causing disruptions in both plan administration and the markets. Further, the substitute would require employers to create joint employer-employee retirement plan trusteeships. Employers in Kansas's Third District have assured me that this provision has the potential to complicate plan administration to the point that some employers may drop their plans altogether. The working people of this country deserve a more thoughtful, careful process from their Federal representatives. While the substitute goes too far in seeking to ensure reasonable safeguards on employer sponsored retirement plans, the underlying bill before us today does not go quite far enough in protecting working Americans. But, it is a good start. I am voting for the underlying bill today to keep this process moving. I hope, however, that the Senate considers strengthening the bill's provisions with regard to investment advice to ensure that the advice workers receive through their employer is truly independent. I would suggest that the Senate consider allowing, on a tax-preferred basis, individuals to seek the investment advisor of their choice. In addition, I hope the Senate addresses the issue of corporate and executive abuses brought to light in recent scandals. I submit that imposing an excise tax on excessive corporate payments to senior executives in periods prior to bankruptcy is a good start. I believe this will help prevent insiders from draining assets from a company as its stock value declines. For the record, both of these suggestions are contained within H.R. 1776, the aforementioned Pension Preservation and Savings Expansion Act of 2003. I urge the House to come together quickly and consider this bipartisan bill so that the Senate may have a range of options from which to advance reasonable, much needed pension reform that will benefit working Americans. I will continue to support bipartisan efforts to reform our Nation's retirement system in a manner that benefits both employers and employees. I urge my colleagues to do the same and hope that the legislative process will ultimately produce a bipartisan conference report which we may all proudly support.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from the State of Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to again thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for introducing this important legislation. Unfortunately, he was not able to be here personally. I urge all Members to support the adoption of this measure.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MOORE. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members of this body to vote for the motion to recommit. This is not a partisan issue to me. In fact, 2 years ago, Mr. Speaker, I voted for the President's tax cut. But that was then and this is now. Two years ago we had a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion. Now we have a projected deficit of $400 billion. That was then and this is now. Deficits do matter. At one time or another all of us in this Chamber have said that deficits do matter, that debt does matter. We had then, 2 years ago, a $5.7 trillion debt. Now we have a $6.4 trillion debt. The debt tax, the debt tax, not the death tax, Mr. Speaker, the debt tax is $1 billion a day. And this bill, if it is passed, will increase the debt tax and the party that is supporting this bill will increase taxes to every taxpayer in this country in the future if this bill passes. They want to raise that tax and I think that we should not do that, Mr. Speaker. They want to borrow money to pay for a tax cut now and pass the bill for that tax cut to our children and our grandchildren. That is the wrong thing to do. It is outrageous. It is selfish and we should vote that down. I urge the Members of this Congress to vote for the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the contributions made by James Buchele of Topeka, Kansas, to his city, county, state and nation, over a lengthy and distinguished public career that spans the thirty- five years I have known him. Jim Buchele stepped down from the Kansas District Court bench in Shawnee County after eighteen years of service in 1999. Prior to his appointment, he served as United States Attorney for Kansas. His legal career began in 1966 with private practice in Topeka, after graduation from Washburn University School of Law and Kansas State University. He also served as City Attorney for Topeka and as chief of staff for Representative Martha Keys of Kansas' Second Congressional District. He served four terms as a state representative in the Kansas Legislature. As an attorney and as a judge, Jim Buchele was involved in a wide range of state and federal litigation. After stepping down from the bench, Jim continued to serve as a professional mediator and arbitrator, as well as taking special assignments from the Kansas Supreme Court and serving as a member of the Kansas Children's Cabinet, which made recommendations regarding the management of the funds Kansas receives from the tobacco litigation settlement in order to finance programs and services for children. Mr. Speaker, Roscoe Pound once said that ``Law is experience developed by reason and applied continually to further experience.'' This sentence sums up Jim's lifetime of service in the law. During his time on the bench, for example, he specialized in handling domestic relations cases, including issues such as divorce, property division, child custody and other related matters. Shortly before he stepped down from the bench, the Topeka Capital-Journal published an article reviewing the special interest and attention that Judge Buchele brought to the family law docket in Shawnee County. I include the article in the Record and commend it to you and to my colleagues as evidence of a career in the law that brought tremendous benefits to Jim Buchele's community over a lengthy and successful career. As Owen Fiss wrote in the Harvard Law Review, ``The function of the judge--a statement of social purpose and a definition of role--is not to resolve disputes, but to give the proper meaning to our public values.'' Please join me in saluting Jim Buchele as he moves into full time retirement, where I'm sure he will continue to serve his community and nation at every possible opportunity. Judge Found Rewards in Family Law (By Steve Fry) Shawnee County District Judge James Buchele measures his impact as a family law judge, in part, by a handful of cards and letters he has received from people who passed through his courtroom during divorces and subsequent disputes. ``Thanks a bunch. I really appreciate all that you have done,'' wrote a little girl, who told Buchele she was making A's and B's in school. Another is a letter from a mother, whose children would be able to start college using the backlogged child support Buchele had recovered for the family. Yet another is a letter from a mother, who hadn't been paid child support for two or three years before Buchele got it started again. ``This year I will be able to put the boys in Scouts,''' the woman wrote. ``I was really touched by that letter,'' Buchele said. ``I never realized that that cost was out of reach for some people sometimes because the laws aren't being enforced. ``It makes you appreciate the impact you can have by taking on an area that most judges and lawyers don't like to mess with,'' he said, referring to family law. There is a saying that in family law, especially divorces, you see good people at their worst, and in criminal law, you see bad people at their best as a defendant shows his most positive image to influence jurors. In the past, a district judge quickly could tire of trying divorces, deciding child custody questions between contentious parents and refereeing bitter domestic battles. ``That is the traditional take on what family law is all about,'' Buchele said. ``That's not the way it is in Shawnee County any more.'' Formulation of the ``Shawnee County Family Law Guidelines,'' mandatory attendance at a workshop for divorcing parents, the supervised exchange of children, the development of family law into a speciality in which about a dozen attorneys handle about 80 percent of the cases and reducing the number of family law judges from nine to two has helped quiet the local domestic battles, Buchele said. In an area of law that normally is assigned to a judge for a couple of years or so, Buchele has handled family law in Shawnee County for five years. ``I would rather see good people who are struggling, especially when there are children involved, and help them than sentencing drug offenders when you wonder how much good you're doing,'' Buchele said. Buchele said that in family law, there is a real possibility to help someone, sometimes if only to end a marriage that has gone bad. After 18\1/2\ years, Buchele's stint on the Shawnee County District bench ends when he retires Thursday. The most harmful thing for a child whose parents are divorcing is to witness the on-going conflict between mother and father, Buchele said, noting children whose parents stay in conflict ``are the ones who have problems.'' ``I put the kids' interest first,'' Buchele said, acknowledging sometimes his decisions weren't popular with the parents because things weren't ``equal.'' But if being equal means perpetuating the conflict between parents, equal isn't in the best interests of the child, Buchele said. Buchele handled many criminal trials, the most memorable being the cases of Bobby Jackson, killer of three men in April 1994 at a south Topeka strip bar, and Kenneth ``Kenny'' Cook, who in September 1992 robbed a man of his drugs, shot him to death with a black powder pistol, mutilated the victim's body to block his identification and sank his body in a river. Buchele, who sentenced Jackson, learned of Jackson's March 18, 1995, escape from the Shawnee County Jail while reading a newspaper in a Miami airport. Buchele, who had sentenced Jackson to 72 years in prison for convictions of two counts of first-degree murder, one count of voluntary manslaughter and other charges, was shocked. ``I wondered if he was looking for me,'' said Buchele, who was a little afraid. ``It was a lightning bolt.'' Jackson was recaptured on March 22, 1995. Buchele has a reputation for enforcing the rules in the courtroom, including literally keeping attorneys on their toes. A sitting attorney who spoke to Buchele would quietly be instructed to stand when speaking to a judge. A spectator entering the courtroom with a cup of coffee in his hand would quickly be shown the door. Both are the examples of decorum in the court, and Buchele's model for courtroom conduct was Judge Earl O'Connor, former chief federal judge for the district of Kansas. After hanging up his judicial robes, Buchele will handle special assignments throughout Kansas as a senior judge, sit on the Kansas Court of Appeals to help ease a backlog of cases and work full-time as a mediator and arbitrator in business and family disputes. ``I think there will be a high demand,'' Buchele said. Dispute resolution is even finding its way into criminal cases to resolve charges before the case goes to trial. Buchele is undecided how he feels about that. ``It's certainly a revolutionary approach,'' Buchele said. Buchele has also become a co-author with the recent publication of ``Kansas Law and Practice: Kansas Family Law.'' Co-author of the legal work is Linda D. Elrod, a Washburn University law professor.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, the Governors of Kansas and Wisconsin have proclaimed May 1 as their annual day of observance for commemorating our victory in the Cold War. In a very real sense, the victory of the western allies was also a victory for the oppressed peoples of the Soviet bloc, and liberation for the Russian people, who are now friends and allies of the United States. May 1 was the traditional day of celebration for Communists worldwide, and displays of military might. It is fitting that May 1 now become a day of celebration of liberty for free peoples everywhere, and for remembrance of the sacrifices that made the downfall of Communism a reality. These state proclamations were in response to efforts by the Cold War Veterans Association, which has its headquarters in the State of Kansas, and of which I am proud to be a member. The Cold War was a long struggle, less dramatic than traditional wars, which ended with battles for cities, dropping of bombs, and formal surrenders. The Cold War ended over a period of several years, but as both President George W. Bush and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, ``It was a war, and we won.'' The resolute opposition to the Communist Empire took many forms, and cost many lives of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. It will be years before the casualty count is complete, but it is real, whether the losses were at sea, over Soviet or east European airspace, in shoot-downs over international waters, or along the Korean demilitarized zone (DMZ). May 1 is the anniversary of the shoot-down of Francis Gary Powers' U- 2 in 1960, and the beginning of his captivity in the U.S.S.R. The month of May saw other losses, and some small but shining victories. May was the month in 1949 that the Soviets ended their blockade of West Berlin, after the U.S. Air Force and the British Royal Air Force supplied the besieged city with food and fuel for almost a year, costing the lives of 68 Allied servicemen and 9 Germans. Attacks on U.S. aircraft in the month of May included one in 1955, in which 2 Chinese Communist soldiers were shot down over international waters, an attack on U.S. reconnaissance aircraft over the U.S.S.R. (1954), and over international waters near the Kamchatka Peninsula (1953), shoot- downs over East Germany (1953, 1960, 1964), and by North Koreans (1963, 1974). U.S. military officers assassinated in May included 2 in Iran (1975) and one in El Salvador (1983). An attack in May 1967 by North Koreans on a U.S. Army barracks left 2 Americans dead and 17 wounded. Two separate terrorist attacks in May 1972 by the Red Army Faction in West Germany left 4 U.S. soldiers dead and 18 wounded. A terrorist attack in San Juan, Puerto Rico, in May 1982 killed one crewman and wounded 3 others from the U.S.S. Pensacola (LSD-38). Casualties at sea in May included the entire crew of 99 aboard the U.S. nuclear submarine Scorpion, which was lost at sea in 1968. May 1954 saw the U.S.S. Bennington (CV-20) damaged by an explosion and fire in the Atlantic, killing 103 and injuring 201. In May of 1981, an EA6B Prowler crashed during landing aboard the carrier U.S.S. Nimitz (CVA-68) in the Atlantic, with 14 killed and 48 injured. In May 1987, 37 sailors aboard the U.S.S. Stark were killed and 21 wounded by an Iraqi Exocet missile. In May 1975, after our involvement in Vietnam and Cambodia had ended, our troops had to rescue the U.S.S. Mayaguez and its crew from the Khmer Rouge, again at a cost of lives of our sailors and marines. And the list goes on. During the Cold War, over 40 U.S. aircraft were shot down, and others were lost during operational missions. Shooting incidents on the ground, along the Iron Curtain in Europe and the Bamboo Curtain in Asia often made the morning reports, but seldom the morning papers. Our atomic veterans participated in a large number of nuclear weapons tests; many of them exposed to ionizing radiation, with tragic consequences in later life. There were many successful missions. Many long nights of faithful and vigilant service, on the frontiers of freedom, on polar ice, submerged, flying airborne alerts and reconnaissance. Staying combat-ready in the Fulda Gap of Germany. Keeping watch on the Korean DMZ. Standing watch in stormy seas. Maintaining the defenses of the continental United States. Constantly improving the combat capability of the United States through research and development. So on May 1, I salute the brave men and women of our Armed Forces who served in the Cold War, and especially those who paid the ultimate price. We refuse to allow their bravery to go unheralded in the name of ``political correctness.'' We also salute the freedom fighters who stood up to tyranny on the streets of Poland (1956, 1981), East Germany (1953), Czechoslovakia (1968), Hungary (1956), Romania (1989), and Afghanistan (1979-88). Their victory and ours are commemorated on each May 1 from this year forward. I now ask our National Government and other state governors to proclaim this day of observance, with appropriate ceremonies and recognition. I also ask President Bush to create the Cold War Victory Medal by executive order, for award to all who served in the Armed Forces and civilian intelligence agencies during this period. We owe them nothing less.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, we must reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil. And while I believe our nation needs a comprehensive energy policy as a matter of national security, we also have an obligation to ensure that this need is met in a manner that does not jeopardize our financial security. This bill takes a balanced approach to meeting our nation's energy security needs. But, it fails to pay for any of these proposals, which have a cost of $18.8 billion. H.R. 6 contains numerous provisions that I have supported in the past and will continue to support in the future under fiscally responsible circumstances. In fact, H.R. 6 includes a provision based upon a bill that I introduced during the last three Congresses that would extend the section 29 tax credit for the production of unconventional fuels such as coalbed methane. My version of this legislation [H.R. 1331] was modified and included in the Ways and Means portion of H.R. 6. I have worked for months to ensure H.R. 1331's inclusion in a comprehensive energy measure. And, while I would like to be able to vote for this provision, I cannot in good conscience support final passage of a bill that includes $18.8 billion in tax expenditures that are not offset with comparable spending reductions. This is fiscally irresponsible. Such action threatens to spend money from both the Social Security and Medicare Trust funds on which the seniors in my district rely. Further, as a member of the House Renewable Energy Caucus, I have supported measures to encourage and increase the use of renewable and alternative energy sources. This bill includes tax incentives for energy efficiency programs and renewable energy sources such as wind and solar production that I would like to vote for, and I would support if these incentives were paid for and handled in a fiscally responsible manner. As well, H.R. 6 contains tax incentives for domestic production from marginal wells that I have supported in the past that would increase our national energy supply. As a co-chair of the Biofuels Fuels Caucus, I also support the renewable fuels standard which I have promoted to decrease our dependency on foreign oil, help U.S. farmers and protect the environment. I cannot, however, support provisions in this legislation that do nothing to safeguard electricity consumers from unscrupulous utility companies that abuse market power and manipulate electricity prices. Rather than holding these electricity companies accountable, this bill would weaken consumer protections regarding electricity. I also find it impossible to support provisions that would protect former U.S. corporations that moved offshore to tax havens in order to avoid U.S. income taxes. This legislation continues tax benefits to companies that have already moved offshore. I also support many aspects of Representative John Dingell's electricity title substitute, and would have supported it had it been an amendment. As a substitute to the title rather than an amendment, however, it strikes many useful and important provisions in the electricity title without providing any alternate. Last night, the House considered the conference report on the budget resolution which increases deficits and debt and passes these pressures onto future generations. Instead of developing a sound fiscal strategy to face the challenges that will come with the increased risks from terrorism and the impending retirement of the baby boom generation, the budget will result in over $3 trillion in additional debt that creates a long-term ``debt-tax'' for working American families. If Congress adopts this new policy of borrow and spend it not only endangers the Medicare and Social Security surpluses, it places us back on the road to deficit spending. We must not travel down this road again. It is time we made some tough choices. This Congress made a commitment to the American people that we would not vote to spend one single penny of the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds. We must honor that commitment. Spending restraint, fiscal responsibility, and honoring our commitments do not come about by good intentions, but by resolute actions. Today, I reluctantly vote against this energy package because it fails to provide any offsets to pay for its provisions. This is a particularly difficult vote for me because this bill contains a proposal I authored, as well as many other good provisions. In an effort to honor our commitments to ensure financial responsibility, I will adhere to the levels in the budget resolution enacted by a majority of this Congress. I will oppose any efforts that reduce revenues without offsets. The expenditures contained in H.R. 6 are not accounted for in the budget resolution and, despite the sound energy policy this bill promotes, it busts the budget and threatens the Social Security and Medicare Trust funds. I urge my colleagues to honor their commitment to preserve this country's integrity; I urge my colleagues to either find a way to pay for these tax cuts or to vote no on H.R. 6.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4613. It is imperative as we prepare our communities for biological and chemical warfare that we do all that we can to encourage health professionals to be vaccinated for smallpox and ensure that they are taken care of if they fall ill or die due to the vaccination. That is the least we can do for those who may be called upon to protect us at home. I support a smallpox vaccination compensation policy--but it has to be done right the first time. The bill before us does not provide for adequate education, prescreening, and surveillance for nurses, first responders and other health care professionals who take the vaccine. For example, members of the armed services who received the smallpox vaccine were entitled to personalized education and free and confidential prescreening prior to the administration of the vaccine. This important process properly screened out one-third of the potential recipients. The recent deaths of vaccine recipients with heart disease only underscore the need for a strong education, prescreening, and surveillance effort--the CDC and government agencies need to be given the tools to track and eventually screen out individuals who are at risk. As the husband of a nurse, I understand the commitment that health care professionals have to their patients and their communities. I know that most of them are eager to provide their expertise to help protect their neighbors should the unthinkable occur. It is unreasonable and unfair, however, to ask them to risk their lives and health, and that of their families, without guaranteeing that the federal government will take care of them in the event of an adverse event. Health care professionals are anxious about taking the vaccine--and for good cause. The smallpox vaccine has a long record of negative side effects to both vaccinated individuals and secondary contacts. It is absolutely essential those individuals who are vaccinated understand the risks of the vaccine and have confidence in their government to care for them should they become ill or die--this is the least we can offer them. H.R. 1463 includes an unacceptable lifetime cap on wage replacement and fails to ensure that funds will be available in the future for the compensation fund. It does not guarantee that states will have the money to implement the program or that compensation benefits will be paid--instead, this legislation forces these health care workers to fight for funds each year in the appropriations process. It is unfair and insulting to ask them to compete each year with other national spending priorities and our ever-growing national debt. I support a substitute that would provide guaranteed funding to individuals injured by the smallpox vaccine. It would also implement a strong screening and follow-up regime, and includes language that will alert workers to the most likely side effects and speed up the qualification process. This proposal provides greater security, both psychological and financial, for health care workers and other first responders who are being asked to take this vaccine to help their communities. It is a shame that the House leadership would not allow this substitute to be debated on the floor. I believe that bringing up such important legislation on the suspension calendar, which is ordinarily reserved for non-controversial legislation, is a thinly-veiled partisan ploy. This important issue deserves a robust debate. Nurses, first responders, and other health care professionals who volunteer to take the smallpox vaccine, at great risk to themselves and their families, deserve more than lip service and empty promises.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the University of Kansas, my undergraduate alma mater, for reaching the Final Four competition for the second year in a row. KU has shown impressive skill in this year's NCAA conference, and I am confident that they will reach the championship game. The Jayhawks have benefited from excellent senior leadership and the outstanding coaching of Roy Williams. The team has a 29-7 record, most recently with great victories over Duke and Arizona. Congratulations to the KU Men's 2002-2003 Basketball team on their efforts and their return to the Final Four. This team has shown an ability to thrive in the face of adversity. I know their play in Saturday's match-up against Marquette will make me proud to be a Jayhawk. Rock Chalk Jayhawk, KU!

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1104, legislation that would improve our capacity to recover missing children with implementation of a national AMBER Alert program. The safe recovery of 15-year-old Elizabeth Smart in Utah recently brought this important issue to national attention. I am well aware of how important AMBER Alert systems can be to helping bring abducted children home safely, which is why I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 412, the National AMBER Alert Network Act included in this bill, and supported the legislation introduced by Representatives Martin Frost and Jennifer Dunn in the 107th Congress. As Johnson County District Attorney for 12 years, I have seen child abduction cases that ended with the most horrible result--the death of a child. I helped bring AMBER Alert to Kansas City in 1999 and the system so far has contributed to the safe return of a 16-month-old child and a 4-year-old child. As a result, the state of Kansas implemented a statewide AMBER Alert program in October of 2002. 1 have since actively worked to bring the AMBER system nationwide. Earlier this month, I hosted a news conference in Kansas City, Missouri, with my colleague Representative Karen McCarthy, to raise awareness about AMBER procedures and the need for a national program. We joined with local police to publicize AMBER Alert and expressed our support for immediate passage of this bill. Cases like Elizabeth Smart demonstrate the urgency for recovering missing children, and although the Smart family was incredibly lucky, many others are not. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that we have not seen the AMBER Alert legislation come to the floor as a stand alone bill, as I called for many months ago. I believe that saving children should be above partisan politics and that Congress should be able to unite in favor of increasing measures to help our kids. While I rise in support of H.R. 1104, 1 do want to express my dissatisfaction that we could not follow the model of our Senate counterparts who passed AMBER Alert without additional provisions that likely will delay enactment. I hope that you will join with me to pass H.R. 1104, however, to improve the safety of our children.