Dennis Moore

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, April 28, 2002, American workers across the nation recognized the significant contributions of American labor to the founding and growth of our country. Every year, Workers Memorial Day gives working men and women an opportunity to acknowledge labor's great achievements and promote much needed improvements in working conditions. While decades of hard work and struggle by workers and their unions have resulted in vast improvements in working conditions, the toll of workplace injuries, illnesses and deaths remains unacceptably high. According to recent figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 5,915 workers died from on-the-job injuries in 2000, while an additional 50,000 to 60,000 workers die each year from occupation-related injuries and diseases. Another 6 million workers sustain serious injuries every year while at work. Workers Memorial Day is held on April 28 to commemorate the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA], which has dedicated itself to reducing workplace injuries since its inception in 1971. Over the past three decades, workplace fatalities have been cut in half and occupational injury and illness rates have declined 40%. At the same time, U.S. employment has doubled from 56 million workers at 3.5 million worksites to 6 million workers at approximately 7 million sites. I believe our country must do even more to reduce workplace injuries and illnesses. Congress can and should dedicate itself to achieving these goals by passing common sense and long overdue ergonomics legislation. Unfortunately, last year Congress passed a Disapproval Resolution that overturned the Clinton Administration's sensible ergonomics rule. President Bush signed this resolution into law in March 2001, and the Bush Administration recently announced its plans to push for voluntary ergonomics standards. The ergonomics guidelines developed during the Clinton Administration were developed after years of studies and analyses, and were based upon sound science. I disapprove of Congress's elimination of the important rule designed to identify and remove hazards to workers' health, and will continue to urge my colleagues to pass legislation requiring the Department of Labor to draft a meaningful ergonomics standard. As we remember the millions of workers who have sustained injuries and, in many cases, died as a result of workplace hazards, members of Congress and working Americans must continue to fight for stronger safety and health protections for workers everywhere. Working men and women deserve these protections, and have certainly earned them. While we celebrate Workers Memorial Day once a year, we must dedicate ourselves to improving safety and health in every American workplace on a daily basis.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Representative Cal Dooley's motion to instruct conferees to agree to Senate provisions that would lift a ban on private financing of agricultural sales to Cuba. Unfortunately due to reasons beyond my control, I was not able to vote; had I been able to vote, I would have voted in favor of lifting the ban on private financing of agricultural sales to Cuba. The Dooley motion to instruct conferees, relating to Sec. 335 of the farm bill and agricultural trade with Cuba, permits only private financing of agricultural sales to Cuba, and maintains the United States ban on government financing. The Dooley provision says that that private enterprise should make lending decisions. The Federal Government should not be in the position of denying private entities the right to finance sales of agricultural goods to Cuba. Under current law, no provision of credit from a United States financial entity of any kind is allowed. United States agricultural exporters must either arrange for credit through an overseas bank, or must insist on cash in advance from the Cuban importer. Even with these cumbersome restrictions, United States farmers have been able to realize more than $35 million in sales to Cuba within the last 3 months, including Kansas wheat. Cuba has purchased a wide range of American products, including rice, chicken, soybeans, wheat, corn, and vegetable oil. The Cuba Policy Foundation recently released a study showing the embargo of Cuba is costing United States farmers up to $1.24 billion in annual exports to Cuba, and another $3.6 billion in agricultural related output. Moreover, the American public supports agricultural trade with Cuba. In a 2001 poll, conducted for the Cuba Policy Foundation, 71.3 percent of Americans agreed that American companies should be allowed to sell food to Cuba. My State of Kansas' potential income from Cuban food exports is predicted at $38,770,000 per year including the creation of 1,098 new jobs. Today, the 40-plus year-old embargo against Cuba has failed to achieve the policy objectives of the United States. The cold war has been history for well over a decade; why continue to make the Cuban people and American farmers suffer for a war we won on so many other fronts?

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong concerns about H.R. 476. I held the same concerns when I voted against this legislation during the 106th Congress, as did many of my colleagues in the House and Senate. No effort has been made to address the valid problems with this bill in the nearly three years since we last took it up on the House floor. This restrictive legislation would isolate a young woman at a time when she needs support the most. I absolutely believe that young women should involve parents in important life decisions. In fact, most young women do involve a parent when making a decision about abortion, however, that option is not always available. Incest, abuse and other serious family problems are a sobering reality for many in our country. In that case, a young woman should be encouraged to consult another trusted adult, such as another family member, a medical provider or a religious counselor--this bill makes that virtually impossible and even criminal. Under this bill, grandparents, older siblings, religious leaders, and other responsible adults could face prosecution, imprisonment, fines, or civil suits for coming to the aid of a young woman during her time of need. The true absurdity of this legislation can be summed up in this astonishing example: A father molests his young daughter and the young woman goes to her grandmother for help. Should the young woman obtain an abortion in another state, this bill could give the father standing to sue in a civil court and could make the grandmother liable for $100,000 in damages and a year in prison. In addition, this bill is dangerously overbroad. The law would apply to anyone having peripheral involvement in the minor's abortion, even if the person was not acquainted with the bill's legal provisions or even aware of the minor crossing state lines. I supported a Motion to Recommit that would have sent this flawed bill back to the committee with the recommendation that the legislation exempt grandparents and adult siblings from the bill. This Motion would have provided young women with at least a minimal safety net of family members. It failed by a vote of 173-246. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to oppose legislation that will endanger young women's lives and health by isolating those who cannot involve a parent. We should encourage young women to turn to other family members when they cannot turn to their parents, and Congress has no business criminalizing that.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I voted for the tax cut last year. This is not a partisan issue for me. Last year, there were surpluses. This year, the surpluses are gone. But this legislation would increase the debt of our Nation by over $4 trillion in the next decade. That is $4 trillion we will have to borrow, borrow from Social Security. That is $4 trillion right when we need it, when the baby-boomers begin to retire. That is a $4 trillion debt that we will have to pass on to our kids and grandkids. That is not fair. That is not fiscally responsible. And it gets worse. Three times in the last year the Secretary of Treasury has written Congress warning us that unless Congress acted to raise the debt limit, we would place our country in a situation of default on current debt obligations. Congress has not acted; and 2 weeks ago, the Secretary of the Treasury began to borrow money from Federal retirees' pension funds in order to keep our government solvent. The President has requested a $27 billion defense supplemental to continue our war on terrorism. That is $27 billion we are going to have to borrow, and we will do it. So at a time when we are borrowing money to pay for the war on terrorism, when we are shifting retiree pension funds to maintain current services, and when we know in 10 years the baby boomers will begin to retire, we are wanting to cut taxes. We are wanting to cut taxes starting in 8 years. That is not only fiscally irresponsible, because we do not know what is going to be happening to the economy in 8 years, it is hypocritical; and it did not have to be this way. Last year I voted for the President's tax cut. We had assurances from the President, and I believed it too, that we had these surpluses that would go on and we would be able to afford the tax cut. I am not apologizing for voting for the tax cut, but we should not take this irresponsible action. If we do, it is going to cost our kids $4 trillion in the future. The budget, the projected budget surpluses simply did not materialize. We need to reevaluate our position now, just like any responsible business would do. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members to vote against this proposal. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule to H.R. 586. This bill is bring brought to the floor under an abusive procedure that prevents the consideration of any amendments and even a motion to recommit. This rule limits full and fair debate on proposed legislation that would have the effect of increasing the deficit by over $4 trillion in the next two decades. That's $4 trillion that we will have to ``borrow'' from the Social Security trust funds. That's $4 trillion that we will need at precisely the time the baby boom generation will be retiring. That's a $4 trillion debt we will pass on to our children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, that's not fair; that's not fiscally responsible. And, it gets worse. Three times in the last year, the Secretary of the Treasury has written Congress warning us of a ticking time bomb in our budget. He warned that, unless Congress acted to raise the debt limit--that is if Congress does not increase the government's authority to borrow money-- we would place our country in the unprecedented position of defaulting on current debt obligations. To date, Congress has not acted; and, 2 weeks ago, the Treasury Secretary began to ``borrow'' retirees' pension funds in order to keep the government open and to prevent a Federal default. Moreover, this Congress has pending a $27 billion defense supplemental to allow us to continue our campaign against terrorism. That is $27 billion we did not anticipate; that is $27 billion we will have to borrow. So, at a time when we're borrowing money to pay for the war on terror, when we're shifting retiree pension funds to maintain current services, and when we know we'll have, in ten years, an enormous obligation as baby boomers begin to retire and draw Social Security--we're cutting taxes? Mr. Speaker, that's not only fiscally irresponsible, it's hypocritical. And it didn't have to be this way. Last year, I voted for the President's tax cut with his assurance that we would have the money to pay for it without dipping into the Social Security surpluses. Like you, I believe 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. Unfortunately, the budget surpluses projected last year did not materialize and we are now in a situation where we must reevaluate our fiscal decisions in order to get us out of the deficit ditch. Yesterday, our fiscally conservative coalition took to the Rules Committee a proposal to amend this bill to provide for this permanent extension without using the Social Security surpluses and to restore fiscal integrity to the Federal Government. This amendment was rejected on a vote of 6-3. Today, I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule to allow the House to consider our amendment that will help ensure we get out of the deficit ditch, out of the Social Security surplus and back on the road to fiscal responsibility.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take note of an upcoming event that will be held by the Volunteer Center of Johnson County, Kansas, to recognize local young people who have recently performed meaningful, voluntary community service in our local area. Young people from Johnson County, ages 5 to 18, have been nominated by teachers, counselors, principals and nonprofit agencies to receive recognition for their community service efforts. The Volunteer Center of Johnson County is proudly hosting the second annual Movers and Shakers Recognition Event to honor these outstanding young residents of the Third Congressional District on May 7th. I am proud to report that volunteering has become a vital part of these children's education and I join with the Volunteer Center to recognize these dedicated, caring young people of Johnson County. Annalisa Barelli, Shawnee Mission East; Lindsay Barker, Shawnee Mission East; Kim Beverlin, Shawnee Mission North; Ariel Brody, Shawnee Mission NorthWest; Kathleen Carey, Shawnee Mission East; Stephanie Chen, Blue Valley NorthWest; Jared Cole, Shawnee Mission East; Kyle Douglas, Shawnee Mission West; Abbigall Eli, Mill Valley High School; Jeanne Firth, Shawnee Mission East; Maxwell Fisher, Blue Valley NorthWest; Sollie Flora, Blue Valley NorthWest; Chelsea Fogleman, Olathe East; Jennifer Gampher, Shawnee Mission West; Stephen Green, St. Joseph Grade School; Ashley Haddad, Shawnee Mission South; Carolyn Hummel, Trailridge Middle School; Elaine Jardon, Olathe East; Ashley Johnson, Shawnee Mission NorthWest; Brenden Konczal, Shawnee Mission West; Lisa Kornfeld, Shawnee Mission West; Bridget Mayer, Blue Valley NorthWest; Kaley McManamon, Blue Valley High School; Alicia McWhorter, Mill Valley High School; Stephen Meeker, Shawnee Mission South; Kathleen Murray, Blue Valley North; Simin Nomani, Blue Valley North; Katherine Pfeffer, Cure of Ars Catholic School; Liz Pishny, Blue Valley High School; Travis Preston, Shawnee Mission West; Lauren Repine, St. Thomas Aquinas; Julie Richerson, Trailridge Middle School; Alix Santa Maria, Blue Valley Middle School; Adam Schieber, Shawnee Mission NorthWest; Danay Stanislaus, Olathe East; Erika Swenson, Shawnee Mission South; Shannon White, Blue Valley High School; Kim Williams, Shawnee Mission South; Matt Woehrle, Blue Valley High School; Richard Zernickow, Shawnee Mission West.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my reasons for voting against H.R. 3762, the Pension Security Act, and 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, and 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 the bipartisan Employee Savings Bill of Rights Act, which 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 the 401(k) plans and Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) of publicly-traded companies, the Employee Savings Bill of Rights 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 through their 401(k) plans and ESOPs. I have serious concerns with both H.R. 3762 and the Miller-Rangel substitute to this legislation. I am disappointed that the House has not been able to come together on this issue to advance reasonable, much needed pension reform that will benefit working Americans. 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. The bipartisan Employee Savings Bill of Rights Act, of which I am cosponsor, requires only current holdings to be diversified out over five years. The substitute's 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 so-called Pension Security Act does not go far enough in protecting working Americans. Additionally, I am extremely disappointed that the House leadership decided to schedule this legislation for floor consideration instead of the bipartisan Employee Savings Bill of Rights. Last month, the Ways & Means Committee approved this legislation by a near- unanimous vote of 36-2. I am frustrated, though not surprised, at the House leadership's unwillingness to address the important issue of pension reform in a bipartisan fashion. 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.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to explain my reluctant vote against H.R. 3991, the Taxpayer Protection and IRS Accountability Act. I am pleased that the House proposes to make several reasonable adjustments to the tax code on the eve of the April 15 tax return filing deadline. During my time in Congress, I have supported tax relief in all its forms, including reductions in income taxes, estate taxes and the marriage tax penalty, as well as common sense reforms that simplify the federal income tax code for all tax-paying Americans. I strongly support the provisions of this bill that would waive penalties that taxpayers are forced to pay for first-time, unintentional errors on their tax returns. H.R. 3991 permits the IRS to waive penalties for such errors committed by a taxpayer with a good history of tax compliance. This provision enjoys widespread bipartisan support, and is long overdue. Further, I support the provision in this legislation that will reduce interest and penalties that taxpayers must pay due to IRS errors. Under H.R. 3991, all taxpayers will have 21 days to return an erroneous refund before the government can begin to charge interest. Additionally, I am pleased that this measure would extend to April 30 the due date for electronic filing and paying individual income taxes. While I support the provisions in H.R. 3991 that would simplify the tax code for individuals and small businesses in the Third District of Kansas, I am frustrated that this bill includes language that would exempt from federal reporting requirements ``527'' political groups that currently are required to comply with state and local election reporting laws that are ``substantially similar'' to the federal rules. I have significant reservations about voting for a bill that could partially reverse the recent success of campaign finance reform legislation. Simply, the provision that the Ways and Means chairman added during committee consideration of this measure goes too far. This language would allow special interest groups to avoid federal election laws by organizing at the state and local levels. While I fully expected opponents of campaign finance reform to attempt to undermine the legislation that President Bush signed into law on March 27, I am surprised and extremely disappointed that supporters of the campaign finance status quo have attached this anti- reform language to an otherwise non-controversial taxpayer rights bill that I want to support. Consequently, I intend to vote against this legislation. I hope reformers in the other body will block any congressional attempts to rollback reasonable reporting requirements that will shine the light of day on special interest money in the political system. Madam Speaker, the American people share a widely held belief that special interests and the very wealthiest campaign contributors wield too much influence in our government. This belief is corrosive to citizen participation in our democracy. The recent passage of the most significant campaign finance reform legislation in thirty years, which will ban soft money and limit issue ads, should make our campaigns and elections more open and hopefully will counter a growing cynicism in our country toward politics and political candidates. I will continue to support simplification of the federal tax code for individuals and small businesses across the country. At the same time, however, I made a promise to my constituents that I will fight to reform the campaign finance system during my time in Congress, and I intend to keep my word by voting against this bill. I hope that the House will have an opportunity to consider a clean version of the taxpayer rights legislation. If so, I will vote for this important legislation. For now, I hope that my colleagues in the House will join me in urging the other body to oppose any attempts to exempt special interest 527 groups from common sense disclosure requirements.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, for the past 90 years, the Girl Scouts of the United States of America (GSUSA) have been pursuing a mission to help all girls grow to be strong, positive contributors to society. Established on March 12, 1912, with a group of 18 girls, GSUSA has since grown to a membership of nearly 3 million girls nationwide, with an alumni base of over 50 million women. The mission of GSUSA is to empower all girls to develop to their full potential. Activities encouraging strong values, leadership, responsibility, confidence, and friendship have been core elements of the Girl Scout program. The GSUSA seeks to enable young women to grow into strong citizens by teaching money and financial management, health and fitness, global awareness, and community service. Millions of Girl Scouts have, through resources provided through the GSUSA, been introduced to the arts, science, math, and technology. In my home state of Kansas, 50,000 girls and adults participate in Girl Scouts. Local initiatives have included: an anti-violence program for girls and mothers; a ``Beyond Bars'' program encouraging Girl Scout activities with incarcerated mothers; girls' sport programs that teach health and fitness skills, as well as allowing young female athletes the opportunity to meet professional female athletes; and several other initiatives designed to teach self-confidence, values, integrity, and leadership. I commend the Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. for their support, dedication, and commitment to American girls, and I applaud them, on this, their 90th anniversary.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to former Johnson County, Kansas, Sheriff Fred Allenbrand, who died on February 15th, at age 68. For half of his life--34 years--Fred Allenbrand served as sheriff of Kansas' fastest growing county, which now comprises two-thirds of the population of the Third Congressional District. Elected in 1966, he served until his retirement in 2002, and oversaw the sheriff's office during a time span when Johnson County grew from a collection of small communities to a major suburban hub of the Kansas City metro area. Dismantling the patronage system that previously had been the hallmark of the sheriff's office, he professionalized the workforce, improved pay and benefits and modernized the force's equipment and facilities. Fred Allenbrand is survived by his wife, Ramona, daughters Cindy Barnes and Karen Wiggin, and son Kent, as well as by seven grandchildren. He will be remembered as a humane, progressive public servant, who was a kind, honest man of great integrity. I worked with him for twelve years as Johnson County District Attorney. I learned much from Fred about our criminal justice system and about people. Fred Allenbrand was my friend. It is fitting that 2000 people attended his memorial service, including hundreds of law enforcement officers. Following the service, a funeral procession that was estimated by the Johnson County Sun to be three miles long traveled to his internment site. Mr. Speaker, I include with this remembrance an obituary of Sheriff Allenbrand that appeared in the Kansas City Star. [From the Kansas City Star, Feb. 16, 2002] Former County Sheriff Fred Allenbrand Dies (By Tony Rizzo and Finn Bullers) Fred Allenbrand, who served longer than any other Johnson County sheriff, died Friday at age 68. Allenbrand took over a 25-member department in January 1967 and retired in January 2001, after building it into a law enforcement agency with more than 400 employees. ``His contributions to Johnson County law enforcement are too numerous to mention,'' said his successor, John Foster. ``But if there's one thing he should be remembered for, it's the integrity he maintained during his 34 years in office.'' Growing up on a Johnson County farm, one of 13 children, Allenbrand used to wave from horseback at passing squad cars. He was so enamored of police work that he took a $200 a month pay cut to the department as a deputy in 1958, ``I loved it,'' he said of his early career in an interview before his retirement. He quickly progressed through the ranks and by 1962 was a lieutenant, but he was demoted after backing the wrong man in the election for sheriff. The experience prompted him to run for sheriff in 1966. After winning the election, Allenbrand moved to dismantle the political system that had led to his demotion. He worked for a civil-service system to protect deputies' jobs, and he worked for better pay and benefits for employees. ``He totally removed any kind of patronage from the system before a time it was regularly done. I think that was the key to his popularity,'' County Commissioner Annabeth Surbaugh said. ``You couldn't fix the deal in Johnson County. He was honest to the end.'' Throughout his tenure as sheriff, Allenbrand sought to keep his department abreast of advances in law enforcement while keeping pace with the county's tremendous population growth. ``You have to be willing to change,'' Allenbrand said in the pre-retirement interview. ``If you're not willing to change, you'd better not live in Johnson County.'' Today the department runs a crime laboratory open to every police department in the county and two jails that hold more than 500 prisoners. Toward the end of his tenure, Allenbrand took some heat for problems associated with construction of one of those facilities--the county's jail at New Century AirCenter. The project, which Allenbrand oversaw, experienced cost overruns, construction delays and trouble with the security system. The jail officially opened in July 2000, three years behind schedule. The complex is named after the former sheriff, and more than 230 prisoners are held in the detention center. When he retired, Allenbrand said he was also proud of the employment opportunities for women and minorities, and the cooperation among all the county's police agencies that was developed while he was sheriff. He was one of the driving forces behind the establishment of a professional police academy in the county. Herb Shuey, department historian and a retired deputy, described Allenbrand ``as the most important sheriff in the history of the department.'' In a book about the Sheriff's Department, Shuey said Allenbrand made himself a first-rate administrator and politician, but at his core he was always a police officer first. ''His compassion is well known and his respect for the law is equally known,'' Shuey wrote. ``More importantly for the citizens of Johnson County, his attitudes filter down and through his subordinates.'' After he was first elected sheriff, Surbaugh said, ``no one ever really gave him any competition. And the reason is, how can you fight honesty, integrity, consistency and fair government? He had a fire in his belly.''

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate and honor three young students from my district who have achieved national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in their communities. Ashley Wright, Aishling O'Connor, and Emily Gipple have been named three of my state's top honorees in the 2002 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor conferred on the most impressive student volunteers in each state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Miss Wright is being recognized for forming a vocal music performance class for developmentally challenged adults in her community. Miss O'Connor is being recognized for her effort to raise over $30,000 to build an intergenerational playground for an inner-city neighborhood. Miss Gipple is being recognized for starting a school club that helps foreign exchange and limited-English speaking students make friends and integrate successfully into both the school and community. In light of numerous statistics that indicate Americans are less involved in their communities than they once were, it's vital that we encourage and support the kind of selfless contribution these young citizens have made. People of all ages need to think more about how we, as individual citizens, can work together at the local level to ensure the health and vitality of our towns and neighborhoods. Young volunteers like Miss Wright, Miss O'Connor, and Miss Gipple are inspiring examples to all of us, and are among our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow. The program that brought these young role models to our attention-- The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards--was created by Prudential Financial in partnership with the National Association of Secondary School Principals in 1995 to impress upon all youth volunteers that their contributions are critically important and highly valued, and to inspire other young people to follow their example. Over the past seven years, the program has become the nation's largest youth recognition effort based solely on community service, with nearly 125,000 young people participating since its inception. Miss Wright, Miss O'Connor, and Miss Gipple should be extremely proud to have been singled out from such a large group of dedicated volunteers. I applaud Miss Wright, Miss O'Connor, and Miss Gipple for their initiative in seeking to make their communities better places to live, and for the positive impact they have had on the lives of others. They have demonstrated a level of commitment and accomplishment that is truly extraordinary in today's world, and deserve our sincere admiration and respect. Their actions show that young Americans can-- and do--play an important role in our communities, and that America's spirit continues to hold tremendous promise for the future.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mayor Sylvester Powell, of Mission, Kansas, who died on March 6th, at the age of 82. Sylvester Powell served as mayor of his northeast Johnson County community, which is located in the Third Congressional District, from 1955-65 and from 1977 until his death. Sylvester Powell was born on May 12, 1919, in Springfield, Ohio. He was drafted into the Army in March 1941, and after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, entered Officer's Candidate School. He was commissioned as a second lieutenant and eventually attained the rank of captain. He served as a company commander in General George Patton's Third Army during the war. While in the Army, he met his future wife, Merle Cline, and they were married on July 21, 1943. Mayor Powell is survived by Merle, their son, Stephen, and their daughters, Janet and Dianne. After leaving the Army and receiving an undergraduate degree from Wittenberg College, Sylvester attended law school at the University of Kansas City [now the University of Missouri-Kansas City], graduating in 1949. He was to practice law for the next 47 years, representing defendants in personal injury litigation. The Powells moved to Mission in 1951, where he helped write the city charter that year, which established the city limits. Sylvester was elected to the city council in 1953 and was first elected mayor in 1955. As the Johnson County Sun recently noted: ``Through Powell's tenure, Mission grew from a sleepy community to the vital retail area it is today. Many improvements were made to the city's infrastructure during the Powell years. But perhaps Powell's greatest legacy was the $8 million Sylvester Powell, Jr., Community Center, which opened in May 1999 . . . The almost 3-year-old community center was an instant success and surprised both detractors and backers by covering its operational expenses.'' I knew Syl personally. As a lawyer and a public official he was truly outstanding. But most of all, Syl was a good friend who will be missed by his friends and his community. Mr. Speaker, I am taking this opportunity to place in the Record two recent pieces from the Kansas City Star regarding Mayor Sylvester Powell: an obituary that the paper carried on March 7th and a column by Mike Hendricks, reflecting the character and ability of the man whom we knew as ``Syl,'' that the Star carried on the following day. I am proud to have known Sylvester Powell. As the Johnson County Sun said in a March 6th editorial: ``People often wonder what one person can do. Syl Powell showed them.'' My only regret is that we will not soon see his kind in public service again. [From the Kansas City Star, Mar. 7, 2002] Sylvester Powell Jr., Longtime Mayor of Mission, Dies at 82 (By James Hart and Grace Hobson) Mission Mayor Sylvester Powell Jr., who helped build the town he loved into a prosperous suburb, died Wednesday night. He was 82.. A World War II veteran and Kansas City trial lawyer, Powell was regarded by many as the dean of Kansas mayors. He served Mission in that capacity between 1955 and 1965, took a ``12- year vacation'' and returned to office in 1977, winning every election for the post since then, most recently in 2001. ``The people don't put somebody back in office that many times unless he's well-respected,'' said Police Chief Bob Sturm, who worked with Powell for more than 30 years. Powell had suffered lung problems and had been hospitalized for weeks, Sturm said. The mayor loved his city, Sturm said, the way he loved his family and his church. Officials in the city of nearly 10,000 will ask residents to lower their flags to half-staff today. A memorial service has not yet been scheduled. Powell was fond of telling others how, when he first became mayor in 1955, Johnson Drive was a two-lane road and the city had an operating budget of about $38,000. He was elected to the City Council in 1953, and one of his first acts as a public official was to help place a traffic light at the intersection of Nall Avenue and Johnson Drive--a project he researched himself by recording traffic with a stopwatch. Several decades and more than a few traffic lights later, Mission stands as a model municipality with a vibrant downtown and a solid tax base. Some of Powell's proudest accomplishments included his work to help with the development of Mission Center Mall, Johnson Drive's success as a retail area and construction of the community center that today bears his name. ``I like that little city and seeing progress made,'' Powell once said of Mission. The secret behind the city's success, most people agreed, was the gruff trial lawyer who served as mayor. Powell, known as ``Syl'' around town, liked to visit the Mission City Hall every morning when he didn't have an appearance in court. ``He's a person who . . . takes a stand and says, `OK, this is what we're going to do,' '' Westwood Mayor Bill Kostar said in February. While some critics said Powell held the city's reins too tightly, he clearly was in control of city government during his tenure. The city did not hire a professional administrator until last year, after a consultant recommended the move. ``I don't think they're going to flnd anybody who can run the city better than I do,'' Powell said in 2000. Last year, the city's management became a campaign issue in Powell's first election challenge since 1985, and he pledged to hire a professional. City Councilman Lloyd Thomas, who has served since 1976, said Mission's strong financial position today was the result of Powell's control over the city's finances throughout the years. ``That's what you call being frugal,'' Thomas said recently. ``He spends the taxpayers' money just like he does his own. He's very frugal with it.'' Powell was able to build the city's sales tax base with development projects that didn't sacrifice Mission's small- town feel, Kostar said. That's a formula other mayors in northeast Johnson County want to emulate, he added. Asked once why he stayed in office so long, Powell said: ``Sometimes I think about retiring, but it's like giving up something dear to you. If you're running the city well, they ought to keep you in.'' Councilwoman Laura McConwell will become Mission's new mayor.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I am here to oppose the rule. The President has asked for bipartisanship, and I have bent over backwards to be bipartisan. In fact, I voted for the President's tax cut last year. When we were asked to be bipartisan, we have tried. In fact, a group of us, the Blue Dogs, submitted a substitute budget using all of the numbers in the Republican budget with two differences: One, that we used Congressional Budget Office numbers, the same numbers used for the last 10 years, not switching numbers; number two, that we added a midyear review in August in case the projections do not come out the way that we hope they will. So when we hear a Member on the other side say there was not an alternative or substitute budget submitted, it is not true. They can say black is white, but it does not make it true. They have the votes, and they denied our substitute budget. They denied us the opportunity to present a substitute budget. They know that the numbers do not add up. Mr. Speaker, why is a review important? Because Congress right now is in the Social Security funds and will be in $200 billion by the end of the next fiscal year, and $1 trillion over the next 10 years if things are not changed. Under the present budget and the proposal, it is a trillion dollars into Social Security funds over the next 10 years. I voted for the tax cut. I want a chance to work with the other side on a bipartisan manner, but it is not happening. We reached out to them and basically were slapped in the face. I wish we could start this over because we could work together given half an even and fair chance. The President and the Secretary of Treasury has asked for a $750 billion increase in the debt limit. That is a $750 billion blank check. I think Congress has a responsibility to make sure that we oversee the use of that money and not write blank checks or provide blank checks to any person.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee, and next I am going to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California. I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps), and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) for their remarks this evening. I think we have heard for just about the last hour, Madam Speaker, some really good advice about what we need to be looking at in the future and what we need to do as a country. We can always choose the easy path; or we can try to do what is right by our children, by our grandchildren, and for our country. Doing what is right may sometimes be harder, but it has its own rewards. I think we need to look at fiscal responsibility and a plan back to fiscal discipline for the future of our great country.

Mr. MOORE. Madam Speaker, last year it was announced by the Congressional Budget Office that, and I am talking about February of last year, that the projected surplus over the next 10 years would be approximately $5.6 trillion. At that time, the surpluses ran as far as the eye could see, and everybody was talking about the surpluses and how we might use those surpluses to benefit our country. In fact, the debate at that time was how we might use those surpluses to pay down our national debt, which was approximately $5.7 trillion at that time. The debate was how much we should pay down our surplus and whether we should pay down our surplus or if we should pay down our surplus, if we might pay it down too fast. In fact, Chairman Alan Greenspan of the Federal Reserve Board said there would be some danger in paying down our national debt too quickly. Well, that problem has been solved. We no longer have surpluses. In fact, and I am not pointing fingers or blaming anybody here, but as the result of an economic slowdown, as a result of the horrible tragedy that confronted our Nation on September 11 last year, the economy slowed down, number one. It was really put into a tailspin on September 11. The surpluses have virtually disappeared. In fact, the $5.6 trillion surplus last year that was projected over the next 10 years this year, in February of this year, was projected by the Congressional Budget Office to be approximately $1.6 trillion. Somebody said to me when I was back home, what did you all do with the other $4 trillion? I said, well, it was a projected surplus. Projections are hopes for the future. In fact, I speak virtually every weekend when I go home to either college classes or high school classes, government classes. I remember several months ago speaking to one high school government class. I was talking to them about the virtues of fiscal responsibility and paying down our national debt, and what Chairman Greenspan has taught us about long- term interest rates benefiting and being lowered as a result of fiscal responsibility and fiscal restraint. I talked to this class about surpluses and deficits, and I said finally to the class, these high school seniors in the government class, ``How would you define a projected surplus?'' One girl raised her hand, and she said, ``Maybe yes, maybe no.'' I thought, what a great definition. She could probably give good instruction to some of our colleagues here in Congress who think that we can spend projected surpluses, which we know not to be the case. It is often said that our children are our future. I think no issue goes more directly to the heart of our Nation's future than the debt limit, because what we do now and what we do in the future is going to affect our children, our grandchildren, and their children, because they are going to have to pay off the debt, whatever debt we accumulate. I think, again, Congress could learn something from our children and do something better for our children. Apparently, Congress is one of the only groups that has not heard that surpluses can disappear, and now we are paying the price and have to make some tough choices. The President wants to raise and Secretary O'Neill wants to raise the debt limit by roughly $750 billion. This would raise the public debt from $5.95 trillion to $6.65 trillion. I am asking, and again, I am not here to lay blame or point fingers; certainly, the recession I do not believe was the President's fault, and certainly September 11 was not the President's fault. The Congress and the administration should take a hard look at our long-term budget priorities before writing a huge blank check, though, of $750 billion. I believe it is irresponsible to raise borrowing limits today without planning to protect our children and grandchildren from the consequences of our debt in the future. Lower numbers would be more acceptable at this time. I believe our discussion of the debt limit should be part of an overall discussion as to how to balance the budget. We cannot throw away and we should not throw away all the progress we made over the last several years in terms of fiscal responsibility in this country. There was a lot of pain involved, and I think we learned some tough lessons, but I think Chairman Greenspan is exactly right: If we can show fiscal responsibility and fiscal restraint, it is going to have a beneficial impact on long-term interest rates, and that affects everybody in this country who borrows money for a mortgage, for a car loan, or any other type of consumer loan. Too many people in Congress, both sides, Republicans and Democrats, worked too hard to balance the budget to so easily slip back into our old habits. I hope that does not happen. The President said several times, and I agree with the President wholeheartedly, there are a couple of times when it is appropriate and sometimes necessary to engage in deficit spending, short-term deficit spending. One is in time of war, and the other is in time of recession. We were in recession, we are told now we are coming out of recession, but we may still be in a time of war. I do not begrudge what the President has done and what Congress has done in supporting the President in terms of some deficit spending. But what I do want and what I think we desperately need in this country is a plan to get us back to fiscal responsibility when the threat to our Nation is past. When they borrow, when families and businesses put together plans to pay off their debt, I go home virtually every weekend and I hear from families that they live by three simple rules, and they wish Congress would as well: Number one, do not spend more money than you make; number two, pay off your debts; number three, invest in the basics and for our future. The basics for the country are national security, national defense, Social Security, Medicare, some transportation, things of that nature. The basics for a family are food, shelter, education, health care, and all the things that I think we could agree on. I really think that Congress and this country need to be more like families in managing their budgets. Our government really should not be any different. We need a long-term plan to pay off our debt. Raising the debt limit by $750 billion just allows Congress to continue its free-spending ways. We should not give a blank check to a Congress that has proven it cannot control its own spending. Several of my colleagues and I have offered a substitute budget that would raise the debt limit by approximately $100 billion to $150 billion up to the end of this fiscal year, September 30 of 2002. This would prevent a fiscal default, it would stabilize markets, and it gives Congress and the President time to develop a long-term plan to return to balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility. We should not play partisan games with the financial health of our country. An unprecedented Federal default would wreak havoc on our economy. But that is only slightly worse than the bleak outlook we will leave our children if we do not get back to fiscal restraint and fiscal responsibility. Higher debts now mean higher taxes for our children, and that is grossly, grossly unfair. We are willing to raise the debt limit, but it must be part of a plan to balance the budget and stop spending the Social Security surpluses. Nothing less than our future and the future of our children and future generations in our country is at stake. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. MOORE. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to recognize another gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), and I yield to him.

Mr. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps).

Mr. MOORE. Madam Speaker, next I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on March 4, I placed in the Congressional Record an extension of remarks, that included a letter from Leaford Bearskin, the chief of the Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma, concerning congressional actions last year that affected his Tribe. Due to space limitations, I was unable to include correspondence from organizations in the Third District of Kansas supporting the Wyandotte Tribe Settlement Act, referred to by Chief Bearskin. I have included the nine letters below. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas, Kansas City, KS, October 20, 1999. Hon. Don Young, Chairman, House Resources Committee, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Young: On behalf of the citizens of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas, I would like to thank you for your efforts in sponsoring H.R. 1533, The Wyandotte Tribe Settlement Act, and strongly urge you to continue your efforts to move this critical piece of legislation though Congress before it adjourns. The citizens here, overwhelmingly, endorsed gaming at the Woodlands by an 80 percent vote in 1997. The passage of H.R. 1533 and similar legislation in the Senate would allow the Wyandotte Nation the opportunity to open a gaming facility at the Woodlands and greatly enhance the economy of this city and county. There is already widespread gaming throughout the State of Kansas and in the Kansas City area. This bill would allow the citizens of Wyandotte County to realize economic gains that are currently not available to them. Your continued efforts are greatly appreciated, and If I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Carol Marinovich, Mayor/CEO.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, during the first session of the 107th Congress, two amendments were considered as a part of the annual appropriations process which had an impact upon the Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma. This Tribe has a long history in Wyandotte County, Kansas, which is located in my congressional district. Currently, the Tribe is seeking to establish and operate a gaming facility in Wyandotte County, under the provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. I recently received a very thoughful and detailed letter from Wyandotte Tribe Chief Leaford Bearskin, in which he responds to a statement concerning the issues raised by these appropriations amendments that was delivered on the Senate floor late last year by Senator Sam Brownback. So that the Congressional Record may fully and accurately reflect the history of the Wyandotte Tribe in Kansas, as well as the circumstances surrounding last year's provisions of P.L. 107-63 and Senate amendment 2065 to H.R. 3061, I ask that Chief Bearskin's correspondence with me be included in the Record. Wyandotte Nation, Wyandotte, OK, January 29, 2002. Hon. Dennis Moore, House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC Dear Congressman Moore: As Chief of the Wyandotte Nation, I am compelled to write in response to Senator Brownback's comments on the Wyandotte Nation which were published in the Congressional Record on December 19, 2001 [at pp. S13671-3]. The deplorable history of tribal relations in the United States History is well known, and for more than three centuries the non-tribal community and even the United States Government have continuously attacked the Wyandotte Nation, both verbally and physically. I am truly saddened that in this modern era of instant global communication, Senator Brownback continues the centuries old practice of verbally attacking the Wyandotte Nation by spreading false and misleading information about both the Nation and our reservation lands located in Kansas City, Kansas. While my ancestors did not have the capacity to respond to false and insidious verbal attacks on the Nation, I do, and feel compelled to set the record straight for the Senate concerning our history and activities in Kansas. First, Senator Brownback and others have wrongfully suggested that the Wyandotte Nation is an out-of-state tribe trying to relocate to Kansas. Such suggestions are outrageous, and demonstrate that Senator Brownback and other who have labeled the Nation as ``carpetbaggers'' simply speak without knowing the history of the Nation and the State of Kansas. In 1843, after the Nation ceded millions of acres in Ohio and Michigan to the United States for unfair and inadequate compensation (according to the Indian Claims Commission) the Nation relocated to the Kansas Territory and were promised a 148,000-acre reservation. When the United States did not honor this promise, the Wyandotte Nation acquired 39 sections of land at the confluence of the Kansas and Missouri Rivers from the Delaware Indian Nation. The Wyandottes founded and platted Wyandotte City, which was later renamed Kansas City. As commerce expanded dramatically on the Kansas and Missouri Rivers in the late 1840s and early 1850s, the United States Government determined that it was no longer advisable to have the Wyandotte Indians occupying Wyandotte City, which was growing into a significant river city. In 1855, the United States, noting that the Wyandotte had become so ``civilized'' and experienced in commercial dealings, entered into a Treaty with the Tribe, giving tribal members the choice to either renounce their Indian heritage and become citizens of the United States, or to maintain their tribal existence and be removed to the Indian Territory (Oklahoma). Rather than turn their back on centuries of history and culture and renounce their tribal identity, my ancestors and many other members of the tribe chose to maintain their proud history and thus were forcibly removed to Oklahoma, left to fend for themselves without any land or resources, and finally left to starve. The Treaty also ceded most of the Wyandotte Nation's Kansas lands to the United States, although the Treaty expressly ``reserved to the Nation the perpetual use and occupancy of the Huron Cemetery''. On the Senate Floor, Senator Brownback objected to the conference report on the Labor-HHS Appropriations Bill (Senate amendment 2065) because the report did not include Senator Brownback's amendment to the Bill which would have overturned a technical provision (Section 134) enacted in the FY 2002 Interior Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2217). Senator Brownback's comments concerning Section 134 of H.R. 2217 are so misleading, and so demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of 150 years of Indian law and history, that I feel compelled to also set the this record straight for the Senate. Section 134 of H.R. 2217, as originally proposed, would simply have acknowledged and clarified that since the Department of the Interior was created in 1848, the Secretary of the Interior has had the authority to determine what lands constitute an Indian reservation. Such a clarification was necessary because last April, the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Sac & Fox of Missouri, et al. v. Bruce Babbitt, et al., issued a confusing opinion that turned two centuries of Federal Indian Law on its head, ruling that the National Indian Gaming Commission (the NIGC) and not the Secretary of the Interior, had the authority to determine what lands constitute an Indian reservation. Both the Department of the Interior and the NIGC were so troubled by this ruling that they requested, albeit unsuccessfully, for the 10th Circuit to reconsider its decision. The 10th Circuit case arose out of a 1996 decision by the Secretary of the Interior with respect to the Huron Cemetery and the property adjacent to the Cemetery. The suit was initiated by the State of Kansas and three (3) other Kansas tribes who operate gaming facilities south of Topeka in an attempt to prevent the Wyandotte Nation from operating a gaming facility in Kansas City. Although Senator Brownback stated that the State and the other tribes prevailed at the District Court level, he is wrong: the United States District Court dismissed the suit in February 2000. The District Court did not address the question of whether the Secretary of the Interior or the NIGC had the authority to determine what constitutes and Indian reservation, and neither the State, and other Kansas tribes, nor the Wyandotte Nation briefed or even discussed this question before the 10th Circuit. Without any thoughtful discussion or information on the matter whatsover, the 10th Circuit, in a fit of judicial activism, simply turned Federal Indian Law upside down by throwing out more than 100 years of history and precedent. Senator Brownback's accusation that the Wyandotte Nation committed an egregious abuse of the appropriations process simply further demonstrates that he does not understand Federal Indian Law or how the Wyandotte Nation responded to the 10th Circuit's plainly wrong decision. After the 10th Circuit opinion was issued, the Nation consulted with the NIGC, the Associate Solicitor for Indian Affairs within the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Justice who had represented the Secretary before both the U.S. District Court and the 10th Circuit. All of the agencies instantly recognized that the 10th Circuit decision not only established bad precedent by reversing 150 years of established law, but created uncertainty throughout Indian Country by creating confusion over which agency, the NIGC or the BIA, makes Indian land and Indian reservation determinations. As a result of these consultations, and to avoid further confusion within Indian Country created by the 10th Circuit's wrong decision, the Nation worked with Members of the House and Senate Appropriation Committees, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and the House Committee on Natural Resources to correct the problem created by the 10th Circuit. The Department of the Interior strongly supported the original version of Section 134, which simply clarified for the BIA, the NIGC and all of Indian Country that the Secretary of the Interior has always had the authority to determine what constitutes an Indian reservation, and nothing in IGRA was intended to eliminate or diminish the Secretary's authority. During the Interior conference, Senator Brownback, through his surrogates, attempted to add a rider to Section 134, which would have taken away the Nation's rights to use and develop its trust land as it best sees fit. The conferees wisely rejected Senator Brownback's attempt to take the Nation's property rights without any debate, discussion or compensation. After failing to convince the appropriate Committees to strip the Nation of it property rights, Senator Brownback sponsored another amendment (#2065), which was accepted en bloc with numerous other amendments on the Senate floor to a non-germane piece of legislation, the FY 2002 Senate Labor- HHS Appropriations Bill, without any debate or discussion. Fortunately, with your help, the Labor-HHS conferees also rejected Senator Brownback's amendment. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, the National Indian Gaming Commission, the Department of Justice, as well as the Senators and Representatives serving on the various committees which have been involved with both Section 134 of H.R. 2217 and Senator Brownback's various attempts to amend or repeal Section 134 all recognize that the 10th Circuit decision wrongfully divests the Secretary of the Interior authority which the Secretary alone has exercised for more than 150 years. Because of the unique role the Department of the Interior has played in Indian Affairs since its inception in 1848, only the Secretary of the Interior has the institutional experience and knowledge to make complex Indian land and Indian reservation determinations. Many of the current Senators were in Congress in 1988 when the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was enacted and the NIGC was created. They know that the IGRA only gives the NIGC authority to regulate tribal gaming and not the broad authority to make Indian land decisions in the first instance, as the 10th Circuit attempted to do. As many in Congress also know, the Secretary of the Interior has always had the authority to determine what constitutes Indian lands or an Indian reservation, and when Congress passed the IGRA, it carefully ensured that nothing in the IGRA diminished or eliminated that authority. Hopefully Senator Brownback will cease his efforts to divest the Secretary of authority that dates back 150 years. In the past, Senator Brownback has publicly stated his intention is to protect the Huron Cemetery by prohibiting gaming activity within the boundaries of the Cemetery itself. Indeed, for the past three years Senator Brownback has attached riders to the Interior Appropriations Bills prohibiting such activity and that language is included again in the Interior conference report on H.R. 2217, without objection from the Wyandotte Nation. The Wyandotte Nation has already agreed to protect the Huron Cemetery by entering into a formal agreement with the Wyandotte Nation of Kansas for such purposes (see enclosed letter from the Wyandotte Nation of Kansas). I should point out that the Wyandotte Nation will not game on the Huron Cemetery, and does not want to game on the land next to the cemetery. We would rather game on another piece of property in Wyandotte County away from downtown Kansas City. Our efforts to game in another location are supported by the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas, organized labor, the local business community and 80% of the voters by referendum. Yet, Senator Brownback's comments on the Senate Floor imply that Wyandotte County residents and local officials do not support our effort. Senator Brownback's comments are simply not true. Congressman Moore, we sincerely appreciate your support of both our and the community's position and will continue to work with you on your legislation that would settle the land claims that we have in Kansas City and Wyandotte County, Kansas. We understand that your bill has twice passed the House Resources Committee. However, we also understand it has never seen action on the House floor because of opposition from Senator Brownback and some of his Kansas colleagues in the House who do not represent Wyandotte County. This session will be different. Currently, we have a claim to three sections of land in Kansas City, Kansas, and had filed a lawsuit in this regard. We have subsequently dismissed the lawsuit for the time being because we reached an agreement with the City and County that we, with their support, would pursue the passage of Congressman Moore's bipartisan legislation in Congress allowing us to purchase a piece of property in Wyandotte County that would be taken into trust by the Secretary of the Interior. If that were to occur, we would not pursue any further litigation and give up our claims to the three sections of land we believe we have legitimate title to in Wyandotte County. Finally, it is also important to mention that the property adjacent to the Huron Cemetery was purchased with funds appropriated, pursuant to P.L. No. 98-602, in satisfaction of four (4) judgments rendered in favor of the Wyandotte Nation against the United States. Each of these judgments arose out of the U.S. acquiring Wyandotte land in the present states of Ohio and Michigan for unfair and inadequate compensation. Because the Nation had virtually no trust land when P.L. No. 98-602 was enacted, the act provided that $100,000 of the appropriated funds must be used to acquire land, and that the United States must accept title to such lands in trust for the Nation. P.L. No. 98-602 is thus a statute, which provided for reestablishment of a trust land base so that the Nation could pursue economic development and self-sufficiency. Senator Brownback's attempts to amend or repeal Section 134 of H.R. 2217 would deprive the Wyandotte Nation of its ability to use the Property acquired with 602 funds for any meaningful economic development. Such a move would be entirely contrary to our legal rights under P.L. No. 98-602 to reestablish a trust land base and pursue economic development and self-sufficiency. Having said all that, I am hopeful that you will continue to oppose Senator Brownback's attempt to amend or repeal Section 134 that would not only take away from the Wyandotte Nation the rights every other Indian tribe is guaranteed by law, but would also cement a decision by the 10th Circuit which creates great uncertainty within Indian Country and prejudices the rights of every Indian tribe in the United States. Sincerely, Leaford Bearskin, Chief.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, Ms. McCarthy and I rise today to pay tribute to the thousands of Kansas City-area residents who over the past two weeks rose to the challenge posed by the worst ice storm to hit the Kansas City metropolitan area in decades. The storm, which struck our area with unprecedented fury on January 29th and 30th, cut electric power to over 450,000 area residents and caused more than $50 million in damage in Missouri and approximately $47 million plus damage in Kansas. Seven deaths were attributed to the storm. As the Kansas City Star described it, the storm ``blasted through [and] left most of the metropolitan area a dangerous tangle of downed trees, felled power lines and snarled traffic. . . . During an intense 12 hours, from 7 p.m. Wednesday to 7 a.m. Thursday, for example, Johnson County emergency dispatchers took 420 calls, mostly from people reporting tree limbs pulling down overhead lines. The Kansas City Fire Department dispatchers took 1,100 emergency calls in a 12-hour period; ordinarily they receive 1,400 in a month.'' Mr. Speaker, our constituents dealt heroically with this unexpected calamity and we want to take special note of the outstanding contributions made by those whose job it was to respond to this crisis: police, firefighters, 911 operators, KCI airport employees, and members of the Missouri and Kansas National Guard, to note just some of them. Medical teams dealt with cases of carbon monoxide poisoning, exposure, and injuries due to falling tree limbs and falls on ice. Homeless shelters opened their doors to neighbors left without heat and electricity and church groups, the Salvation Army, the Red Cross and municipal emergency services worked overtime and went the extra mile to help those in need during this time of crisis. Countless community volunteers including AmeriCorps, the Boy Scouts, and United Way gave their time to assist in the recovery process. Whether you were in Rosedale or Brookside, Independence or Overland Park, the ``Kansas City Spirit'' was prevalent with neighbors helping neighbors to cope with the devastation. Most notably, hundreds of repair crews from area utilities--including Kansas City Power and Light, Missouri Public Service, the Kansas City, Kansas, Board of Public Utilities, Independence Power and Light, Westar Energy, and SBC--worked around the clock, along with 400 out-of-state repair crews and 350 out-of-state tree trimming crews, to replace lines, repair blown fuses and clear ice-laden trees that had cut off power lines and created fire and injury hazards. In fact, it is estimated that of the 450,000 trees that line Kansas City's streets, 10 percent of them will be gone when the cleanup is complete and over 10 percent of the city's privately owned trees also will have perished. To these utility workers, the people of the Kansas City area owe a special debt of gratitude. We also applaud the leadership of our Governors Bill Graves of Kansas and Bob Holden of Missouri along with the countless local elected officials who worked in tandem with state and federal emergency management officials in compiling the damage assessments to that our Governors could request the Federal Emergency Disaster Declaration. The President and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) acted quickly to start the process of bringing federal relief to our community so that now the full recovery can occur. Mr. Speaker, we have proven once again Kansas City truly is the heartland of America--when our friends and neighbors are in trouble, our community comes together to address the crisis and to get the necessary job done--quickly, efficiently and effectively. We have never been prouder to represent the Kansas City metropolitan area.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, we rise today to pay tribute to the thousands of Kansas City-area residents who over the past two weeks rose to the challenge posed by the worst ice storm to hit the Kansas City metropolitan area in decades. The storm, which struck our area with unprecedented fury on January 29th and 30th, cut electric power to over 450,000 area residents and caused more than $50 million in damage in Missouri and approximately $47 million plus worth of damage in Kansas. Seven deaths were attributed to the storm. As the Kansas City Star described it, the storm ``blasted through [and] left most of the metropolitan area a dangerous tangle of downed trees, felled power lines and snarled traffic . . . During an intense 12 hours, from 7 p.m. Wednesday to 7 a.m. Thursday, [for example,] Johnson County emergency dispatchers took 420 calls, mostly from people reporting tree limbs pulling down overhead lines. The Kansas City Fire Department dispatchers took 1,100 emergency calls in a 12-hour period; ordinarily they receive 1,400 in a month.'' Mr. Speaker, our constituents dealt heroically with this unexpected calamity and we want to take special note of the outstanding contributions made by those whose job it was to respond to this crisis: police, firefighters, 911 operators, KCI airport employees, and members of the Missouri and Kansas National Guard, to note just some of them. Medical teams dealt with cases of carbon monoxide poisoning, exposure, and injuries due to falling tree limbs and falls on ice. Homeless shelters opened their doors to neighbors left without heat and electricity and church groups, the Salvation Army, the Red Cross and municipal emergency services worked overtime and went the extra mile to help those in need during this time of crisis. Countless community volunteers including AmeriCorps, the Boy Scouts, and United Way gave their time to assist in the recovery process. Whether you were in Rosedale or Brookside, Independence or Overland Park, the ``Kansas City Spirit'' was prevalent with neighbors helping neighbors to cope with the devastation. Most notably, hundreds of repair crews from area utilities--including Kansas City Power and Light, Missouri Public Service, the Kansas City, Kansas, Board of Public Utilities, Independence Power and Light, Westar Energy, and SBC--worked around the clock, along with 400 out-of-state repair crews and 350 out-of-state tree trimming crews, to replace lines, repair blown fuses and clear ice-laden trees that had cut off power lines and created fire and injury hazards. In fact, it is estimated that of the 450,000 trees that line Kansas City's streets, 10 percent of them will be gone when the cleanup is complete and over 10 percent of the city's privately owned trees also will have perished. To these utility workers, the people of the Kansas City area owe a special debt of gratitude. We also applaud the leadership of our Governors Bill Graves of Kansas and Bob Holden of Missouri along with the countless local elected officials who worked in tandem with state and federal emergency management officials in compiling the damage assessments so that our Governors could request the Federal Emergency Disaster Declaration. The President and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) acted quickly to start the process of bringing federal relief to our community so that now the full recovery can occur. Mr. Speaker, we have proven once again Kansas City truly is the heartland of America--when our friends and neighbors are in trouble, our community comes together to address the crisis and to get the necessary job done--quickly, efficiently and effectively. We have never been prouder to represent the Kansas City metropolitan area.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, the laid-off workers of America are waiting and waiting and waiting. They are waiting for help they need and have been promised time and time again. But it looks as if they will once again be held hostage by the majority leadership's decision to attach their economic agenda to a worker-relief bill. In October we were promised, and displaced workers were promised, an assistance package as soon as Congress passed a bill to help the airline industry. Airlines got help; displaced workers did not. Broken promise. In December we were promised, and displaced workers were promised, they would receive help. It did not happen. Broken promise. Even the President wants this Congress to pass a stand-alone worker-relief bill instead of continuing to play stimulus politics. I have here a chart that shows part of a letter from the President of the United States to me on December 11 on which he called on Congress to send him a stand- alone worker-relief bill regardless of the success or failure of any other elements of the economic stimulus measures now pending. The last week the Senate passed worker-relief legislation; but instead of fulfilling the promise to displaced workers, House is still trying to get a so-called stimulus package and displaced workers are the victims once again. Broken promise. Who are these displaced workers? These are people who just need assistance. They lost their jobs through no fault of their own because of the recession or because of September 11. They were taxpayers before, and they will be taxpayers again just as soon as they find a job. But they need to be able to survive until they find that next job. 300,000 workers ran out of unemployment benefits in December. More ran out in January, and each month more will run out until we pass this package and give assistance to these people again. Today we have the opportunity to expend for 13 weeks unemployed benefits. The President has asked for a stand-alone package. The Senate has passed it. Laid-offer workers deserve it. Let us give them a helping hand. Let us vote against this rule. Promises made, promises broken. The American people are watching and the clock is ticking.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his leadership, and I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for their leadership in fighting the long fight here in the House for campaign finance reform. I think we also need to extend our sincere thanks to people in the other body, Senator John McCain and Senator Russ Feingold, for their long fight and leadership on behalf of campaign finance reform in this country. On July 30, the Blue Dog coalition, of which I am a member, initiated a discharge petition to force a vote on the bipartisan Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill. I wish the House leadership would have provided Members a fair opportunity to vote on Shays-Meehan without that discharge petition last July. But we finally got 218 signatures, which is the magic number, that requires the leadership to bring this to a vote on the House floor. Now we will have our chance for that vote. Now we will have our chance for campaign finance reform. Mr. Speaker, there is in this country a national crisis of confidence in our election system as a result of the huge sums of money in Federal campaigns. This Shays-Meehan campaign finance bill is nothing more than a reasonable attempt to clean up our campaign system. There is in this country a widely held belief that special interests and the very wealthiest campaign contributors have way too much influence in our political system. This belief discourages citizen participation in our democracy. A ban on soft money and limitations on issue ads, together with new disclosure requirements, will make our campaigns and elections more open and, hopefully, will counter a growing cynicism in our country towards politics and political candidates. I also hope, Mr. Speaker, that full disclosure and banning huge sums of soft money will increase participation in the political process. At a time when nearly half of all eligible voters do not vote, we need desperately to find new ways to encourage citizen participation. I believe passage of Shays-Meehan will do just that. There are people, Mr. Speaker, in our country's history who fought and died for the opportunity to vote for the people who would represent them in their government. There are people, Mr. Speaker, around the world who would give anything they could and would fight and die for the opportunity to be able to elect their leaders, to be able to criticize their leaders. We have that opportunity in this country; and yet only about half of the people vote because of the cynicism, because they are so discouraged about our political process, because of all the unregulated soft money in our political process. During the 106th Congress, Mr. Speaker, I sponsored legislation to require so-called section 527, political organizations, to disclose the names of contributors and expenditures. Full disclosure should be the rule. Passage of Shays-Meehan will continue the important process of implementing disclosure requirements that will expose political donations to the light of day. The negative impact of huge sums of money on our political system can be seen in the rapid expansion of so-called issue ads, Mr. Speaker. During the 1999-2000 election cycle, about 130 groups ran issue ads at a cost of more than $500 million. What are they getting for that money? Did Enron get more influence than they were entitled to in our political system because of all their contributions? Hearings will answer that question, hopefully. The amount of money spent on issue ads, which can be paid for with unlimited amounts of money not subject to disclosure amounts, increased by nearly 500 percent between the 1995-1996 and 1999-2000 election cycles. There is no telling, Mr. Speaker, how far spending on issue ads will spin out of control in the years to come. Television viewers in the third district of Kansas, which I represent, in the Kansas City media market, were subject to more issue ads, a total of 12,028, than any other media market in the country, with the exception of Detroit. These issue ads, run by organizations with innocent sounding names, like Citizens for Better Medicare, presented themselves to voters across the country as disinterested advocates of sound public policy. They are not. In fact, these and other groups are funded by special interest money, and viewers at home often have no way of telling who paid for these issue ads. The American people have a right to make an informed decision; and the only way that can happen, Mr. Speaker, is by full disclosure, and special interests should not be afraid to disclose their funding of issue ad groups. The House has passed the bipartisan Shays-Meehan bill twice before. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this bipartisan legislation tomorrow for the third and final time. I hope and believe that if this goes to the President's desk, the President will sign this into law. If that happens, the Democrats do not win, the Republicans do not win. The true winners in our system, Mr. Speaker, will be the American people. As Senator John McCain has said on many occasions, it will either be the special interests or the people's interests that will be represented in Congress. We need to come down hard on the side of the American people.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3529, the Economic Security and Worker Assistance Act of 2001. In October, when this House debated and voted on its first stimulus package, I voted against both the majority proposal and the minority's substitute. At that time, I voiced my concern those two competing proposals had one deficiency in common: they both failed to effectively balance our Nation's priorities and needs. In October, our Nation was at war and I argued that never, in the history of this country, during a time of war, have we cut taxes or spent our precious resources on items unrelated to achieving our wartime objectives. I also argued that we had critical needs both domestically and globally to defeat terrorism, to protect the safety and security of the American people, and to assist the hundreds of thousands of Americans who lost their jobs as a result of the events of September 11. In October, the President called on this Congress to help our Nation recover from the September 11 terrorist attacks. He called on us to secure our airlines, to strengthen law enforcement, to give him the tools he needs to win the war on terrorism, and to assist those Americans affected by the economic consequences of the terrorist attacks. This Congress heard the call of the President and responded in a bipartisan fashion to each and every one of these needs, except for one--we have failed to provide for those who lost their job through no fault of their own. Mr. Speaker, since October this Congress has accomplished a lot and much has changed. We have secured our airlines. We have strengthened law enforcement and we are winning the war on terrorism. We should applaud the bipartisan efforts that made these accomplishments possible. Since October, however, we have witnessed other changes that should demonstrate to each and every one of us that there is much more to accomplish. We experienced first-hand the continued threat of terrorism in the form of anthrax and recognized our deficiencies in providing for our homeland security needs. We learned that the Federal Government ran a unified deficit of $63 billion in the first two months of this fiscal year. We heard from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget that we will face deficit spending for the remainder of the President's term. And, most chillingly, since October over 700,000 Americans have lost their jobs. Mr. Speaker, while much has changed since October, much remains the same. Our Nation is still at war, our States and municipalities are still at risk, and our displaced workers are still in need of assistance. This Congress' response is also the same: we are once again debating a bill to reduce revenues without offsets while in a time of war; we are debating a bill that does nothing to shore up homeland defense; we are debating a bill that fails to effectively respond to the needs of our displaced workers; and I will continue to oppose legislation that fails our economy, that fails our cities and States, and that fails our workers. On December 10, I received a letter from the President calling on Congress to send him legislation to expand unemployment and health insurance benefits by the end of the year, ``regardless of the success or failure of any other element of the economic stimulus measures now pending.'' In response to the President's call, I introduced H.R. 3471, the Worker Opportunity and Relief Compensation (WORC) Act, which would meet the pressing needs of our Nation's unemployed. Among other items, this bill would expand access to unemployment and extend these benefits for 13 weeks. This bill would also provide assistance for individuals to help cover the cost of COBRA health insurance premiums. I urge my colleagues today to vote against this legislation and support the President and me in passing a stand-alone bill that will help our Nation's workers before this Congress adjourns for the year.