Dennis Moore

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the conference report for H.R. 1, the Leave No Child Behind Act. This bill is a great improvement over the legislation passed by the House earlier this year, both in terms of policy goals and adequate funding authority. While this legislation is not perfect, we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. As a father and grandfather, I take the future of our education system very seriously. I have always believed that the federal government is an important junior partner in creating education policy. As such, I believe sound federal education policy must include targeted help for low-income kids and struggling schools, as well as local control, flexibility and support for school officials and teachers. Following House passage of H.R. 1, I wrote to the conferees and requested that the conference committee meet minimum standards to ensure my support of the bill. I believe that they have met my requirements, and I will support the conference report. Not only is education key to our country's economic success in the twenty-first century, the right to a high quality public education goes to the very core of the American values of fairness, opportunity, hard work, and democracy. Ensuring that all American children can get an adequate education, despite their family income, race, or accident of geography, will pull families out of poverty and make our country stronger. This conference report goes a long way towards targeting funding and assistance to the schools and the kids that need it most. The bill improves targeting of federal funds to low-income schools districts. It also establishes a new, formula-driven Bilingual and Immigrant Education program to provide services to English-language learners that most need them. Additionally, the conference report restores after-school and violence prevention program funding that was eliminated from the original House bill. I have made a commitment to parents and students in my district that I will oppose any legislation that uses vouchers to siphon public money into private schools. The conference report provides public school choice for children in consistently failing schools. The bill also includes provisions that help local school districts address the practical matter of school choice, such as transportation costs. Furthermore, the bill does not include block grants that undermine the targeting of funds to students that need them the most. Schools in my own Third District of Kansas are in severe need of repair and reconstruction. Seventy-six percent of American schools are currently in disrepair. Yet, the original House-passed H.R. 1 did not include funding for locally-controlled school construction. The conference report authorizes funding to continue the vital school construction program created by President Clinton. More, than ever, we need to ensure that low-income children get the quality teachers certified in their area of instruction. The conference report doubles President Bush's proposed funding for teacher quality and will give teachers the support, mentoring and salary incentives they need to ensure that we continue to have a strong, professional teaching force. Since taking office, superintendents and principals in the Third District have told me that Congress needs to step back and allow them to do the jobs they were hired to do without excessive red tape, bureaucracy and federal micromanagement. This conference report reduces the number of federal programs and significantly increases state and local control of education decisions. It allows local school districts to transfer up to 50 percent of funds between programs and gives states additional flexibility to transfer funds between programs as long as they demonstrate results. The report gives the states the flexibility to design and select their own tests for math and reading and has made a ``commitment'' to states to cover the costs of administering the test. I am supporting this legislation today, in part because I fully expect the House to fulfill this funding commitment, as promised by the conferees, this year. As I have long worked to fully fund the federal government's commitment to special needs kids through IDEA, I will not support creation of another unfunded mandate. Additionally, the bill provides a national benchmark to ensure the rigor of state tests without crating a new, overly burdensome national test. The bill allows states to use their own report cards, so parents will know their child's school measures up. Although I was disappointed that the Class Size Reduction program and the Eisenhower Professional Development programs were combined into one grant, I am satisfied by the fact that funds were not cut for the programs and school districts will be held harmless and receive at least as much funding as they received in FY 2001. Finally, I want to send a clear message to my colleagues regarding funding of our national education priorities. It is critically important that states and local school districts get the funding they need to implement these new policies. Many promises have been made in this bill, and as a Member of the Budget Committee, I will make every effort next spring to ensure that these promises to fund these new priorities are kept. I had hoped that the conferees would take a stronger stand and make a commitment to fully fund IDEA and not put this important job off until next year. Nevertheless, my commitment to adequate funding for IDEA and other national education priorities, both new and old, remains strong.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on September 11, the people in the Congress came together with the President and all the American people as a result of the tragedy on September 11 in New York and Washington. I think we need to show that same spirit again when we come together for displaced workers in this country. The people in this country who lost their jobs as a result of the faltering economy or the horrible event on September 11 do not need a handout. They do not need a tax cut. They need a helping hand just to get through this personal crisis they have suffered as a result of their loss of jobs until they can find a new job. These people are taxpayers and they will work again when they have the opportunity. But until that time, they need health insurance and they need extended unemployment benefits. I am concerned that the latest press accounts reflect there may be some problem with the stimulus package. If that is the case, we need at the very least to pass a stand-alone provision for these displaced workers. The President has committed to support such a stand-alone provision. I have introduced today the Worker Opportunity and Relief Compensation Act. I ask for your support for that legislation. Mr. Speaker, I include a December 7 letter from the President as follows: The White House, Washington, December 7, 2001. Hon. Dennis Moore, House of Representatives,Washington, DC. Dear Representative Moore: In October, I called on Congress to pass meaningful legislation to help Americans who have been affected by the economic consequences of the terrorist attacks. I called for immediate assistance for workers who have lost their jobs, and for tax provisions that would immediately and significantly stimulate the economy to create more jobs. I made clear that I was open to good ideas for achieving these goals. And I laid out some general principles that are essential components of a meaningful stimulus package: Tax rebates for lower-income Americans; Acceleration of marginal tax rate reductions; Enhanced expensing of capital expenditures; and Elimination of the corporate alternative minimum tax. In the two months since I called on Congress to act, many promising ideas to assist workers have been put forward by both Democrats and Republicans. In November, Chairman Baucus proposed temporary expansions of health care and unemployment benefits for displaced workers. A bipartisan group of moderate Senators also developed a specific proposal for temporary assistance to workers, including a health insurance tax credit. This week, Chairman Thomas and the Republican leadership of the House announced their support for a specific set of temporary expansions of health care and unemployment benefits for displaced workers. Their proposal includes tax credits and mandatory spending, including block grants for health insurance, and extensions and increases in unemployment benefits that could all be implemented quickly. I believe that the recent proposal from the House Republicans, coupled with the essential components of an economic stimulus bill that I have outlined above, can form the basis of a legislative package that provides the assistance and new jobs that American workers need now. I urge the Congressional Leadership to bring this legislation expanding unemployment and health benefits to my desk by the end of the year. Additionally, I urge Congress to send me legislation regardless of the success or failure of any other elements of the economic stimulus measures now pending. I continue to strongly believe that the best course is to combine assistance for dislocated workers with meaningful tax cuts that will create jobs for American workers. My Administration stands ready to work with Democrats and Republicans to turn good ideas into law. We have an extraordinary opportunity to rise to the challenge of extraordinary economic times. I hope that Congress can now act quickly. Sincerely, George W. Bush.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act. In the last two months, the Financial Services Committee, on which I serve, has held two hearings plus a roundtable on the state of the insurance industry after the September 11 terrorist attack. From these meetings, a consensus on several facts emerged. First, the lack of available terrorism reinsurance may cause significant disruption in the primary commercial insurance markets. Second, without assurances that commercial firms can receive terrorism coverage, lenders (such as banks or other institutional investors) will not underwrite new loans for construction projects necessary to grow our economy. Finally, and most importantly, is the fact that prompt congressional action on this issue is essential, since most reinsurance contracts will be renewed on January 1. Absent some form of terrorism coverage, the economic effects to our country will be devastating. On November 7, a proposed bipartisan solution to this problem was reported by the House Financial Services Committee (H.R. 3210) by a voice vote. Our committee reported legislation that provided immediate assistance in the case of a terrorist disaster; it spread the risk across the industry, helping the industry to essentially act as its own reinsurer; it spread the costs out over time, to minimize the impact of an event in any given year; and it provided limited liability relief to protect insurers and taxpayers against litigation in the event of an attack. Mr. Speaker, this bill was considered under regular order--the deliberative congressional process--as all legislation should. Our committee held hearings and markups; we took testimony from all interested parties; we vigorously debated all of the relevant issues; and we reported a well-thought out, well-designed, bipartisan product that met the needs of the marketplace. Unfortunately, the majority leadership decided yesterday that their pre-September 11 agenda was more important than the deliberative legislative process and the will of the Financial Services Committee, which includes almost one-fifth of this House. At 2:30 p.m., yesterday afternoon, the majority leader introduced an entirely new product that did little to address the real needs of the insurance markets, but rather addressed the majority's desire to change long-standing and well established legal procedure in this country. Adding insult to injury, the majority party designed a rule that eviscerated the will of the Financial Services Committee by automatically making in order the leader's bill without allowing the full House the courtesy of a vote on our bipartisan product. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support disregard for the expertise of committees, the erosion of our legislative process, and abuse of minority rights. I can no longer support business as usual. The real injustice in the majority's actions is the fact that we must pass responsible legislation to provide terrorism coverage for primary insurers and policyholders. I hope the other body quickly enacts legislation to address the real needs of the marketplace, while eliminating the extraneous provisions attached to the product we are considering today. Our country needs that legislation. I want to vote for that legislation. I look forward to soon being able to vote for a conference report that reflects the priorities of the Financial Services Committee and respects the processes of our institutions.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3150, the Security Transportation for America Act of 2001, and in support of the substitute bill that the Senate passed unanimously. The American public's confidence in our national aviation system has eroded greatly since the tragic attacks of September 11. The public rightly demands quick federal action to enhance security at our nation's airports, and Congress must act now to ensure the safety of millions of travelers. The federal government has a legitimate and necessary role to play in providing aviation security for the American public. In the wake of the September 11 attacks, many Americans have realized that aviation security needs to be viewed and treated as a matter of national security. Private security companies have repeatedly failed to provide adequate security at our nation's airports, and the American public should not be forced to tolerate the status quo any longer. Passenger and baggage screening should be treated as law enforcement functions, undertaken by trained federal employees subject to annual review and the threat of immediate dismissal in the event of inadequate job performance. The bipartisan substitute, which the Senate passed by a vote of 100-0 on October 11, would shift responsibility for aviation security from the airline companies to the federal government. Our nation's borders, shores and seaports are protected by federal agents of the U.S. Customs Service, Border Patrol, Drug Enforcement Agency and Coast Guard. Our nation's airports deserve the same assurance of protection. As well, both aviation security bills under consideration today seek to expand, not privatize, the Federal Air Marshal program. These measures acknowledge the important role that federal agents play in ensuring and enhancing the safety and confidence of American air travelers. Air passengers deserve the same assurances of safety before they enter commercial aircraft that they enjoy after they take their seats. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the federal government needs to take immediate, reasonable actions to enhance the safety of American air travelers. Aviation security needs to be treated as a law enforcement function, and as such should be provided by federal agents subject to congressional oversight and accountable to the American people.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record the attached Proclamation of Bill Graves, Governor of the State of Kansas, designating October 21-27 World Population Awareness Week. Rapid population growth and urbanization have become catalysts for many serious environmental problems, applying substantial pressures to the infrastructure of nations around the world. These pressures caused by population growth and urbanization are manifested especially in pollution, transportation, health, sanitation and public safety. Cities and urban areas today occupy only 2 percent of the earth's land, but contain half of the world's population and consume 75 percent of its resources. World population stands today at more than 6.1 billion and increases by one billion every 13 years. Therefore, it is important for us to recognize the problems associated with rapid population growth and urbanization. Governor Graves has proclaimed the week of October 21-27 of this year as World Population Awareness week in the great state of Kansas, and I would like to support the Governor in this effort by entering his proclamation into the Congressional Record.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding leader of the Kansas City community, Mr. F. Wynn Presson, who will retire as Vice Chairman of the Board of Health Midwest, on November 30, 2001. Wynn has served as Vice Chairman of the Board of Health Midwest since 1993; prior to that he served as President and Chief Executive Officer. Health Midwest employs over 17,000 people, and has over 100 care/ delivery sites, including 15 hospitals with over 3,295 licensed beds. The system has 40 primary care physician practices employing over 150 physicians, 8 occupational medicine clinics, and 60 corporations. The Health Midwest system links together acute and ambulatory care, physician affiliations, education, occupational health, mental health, long term care, contracted clinical and support services, wellness and fitness, and patient transportation systems. Wynn Presson was the founder and visionary of the Health Midwest system, having served for a total of 24 years with Health Midwest and its predecessor organizations. Just as important, though, is the literally thousands of hours that Wynn Presson has devoted to serving our community and the entire Kansas City metropolitan area during his 24 years with us. The list of his current community leadership positions is impressive: member of the Blue Valley School District Educational Foundation; member of the Executive Committee [and former Chairman of the Board of Directors] of the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Kansas City; Chairman-elect of the Board of Directors of the Full Employment Council; member of the Board of Directors and the Executive Committee of the Greater Kansas City Sports Commission; member of the Executive Committee and the Board of Directors of the Labor-Management Council; Co-Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Mayor's Corps of Progress; and member of the Board of Directors of the Minority Suppliers Council, among others. Equally as important and valuable have been Wynn Presson's contributions to the Kansas City area in years past, through his dedicated service in positions including: former Chairman of the Board of the Greater Kansas City Area Chamber of Commerce; President of the Board of Directors of the Kansas City Club; member of the Board of Directors of the Civic Council of Greater Kansas City; Colonel in the Kansas Cavalry; member of the Executive Committee of the Kansas City Area Development Council; Co-Chairman of the Public Policy Committee of the Mainstream Coalition; and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Midwest Bioethics Center. Mr. Speaker, Wynn Presson is an excellent example of the kind of public-spirited, community-minded citizen who does so much to foster our communities. As this far-from-complete listing of his many public service activities demonstrates, he has been a vital participant in countless civic and charitable activities in the Kansas City metropolitan area. I commend him for his distinguished record of performance with Health Midwest and for his peerless history of community service. Mr. Speaker, I join with my constituents in Kansas' Third District in wishing Wynn Presson an enjoyable and most well-earned retirement, although I anticipate he will not shirk from further opportunities to be of service.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3090, the Economic Security and Recovery Act and the Democratic substitute and in support of the motion to recommit. In the past six weeks, we have enjoyed unprecedented bipartisan cooperation as we have worked together to respond to the events of September 11. I am concerned, however, that by considering this legislation and its substitute today, Congress is quickly returning to business-as-usual partisan politics. At this time, it is important that we step back and take a fresh look at the processes currently underway in Congress to address all of our nation's needs. I am concerned that the piecemeal approach Congress is taking puts the cart before the horse. In particular, the stimulus bill and the substitute being voted on today both fail to effectively balance our nation's priorities. Mr. Speaker, out nation is at war. 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. Simply, our objective today must be winning the war against terrorism without jeopardizing the economy. This objective cannot be achieved by either the Republican or Democrat plans, rather it is best achieved through a comprehensive and bipartisan approach. We have critical needs both domestically and globally to defeat terrorism and to protect the safety and security of the American people. Congress will be required in the coming days and weeks to prioritize its efforts to strengthen domestic security, fight the war on terrorism, provide assistance to dislocated workers and stimulate our economy. These needs will then have to be balanced with our obligation to protect against long-term fiscal harm. Winning the war against terrorism and providing for the safety and security of the American people will require significant resources. We should not enact further tax cuts or spending proposals unrelated to meeting these challenges until we have a better understanding of how much funding the various agencies will need which are involved in domestic security, law enforcement, intelligence, military and other activities in the fight against terrorism will need. Making this determination will require close operation between the administration and the appropriate committees in the House and Senate. The motion to recommit will allow each of these committees, and their executive branch counterparts, to take recommendations, pass legislation and adequately fund our defense and domestic security needs. Moreover, by providing resources to meet these two priorities, we will provide a direct, short-term economic boost both by creating jobs to implement security measures and through restoring consumer confidence by providing reassurance to the American people. The motion to recommit also responds to the immediate economic downturn without damaging the economy over the long-term. It stimulates the economy in a focused, limited and temporary manner. Most importantly, however, the motion to recommit requires us to enact out- year offsets to ensure that we pay for the cost of short-term stimulus. Finally, the motion to recommit addresses the personal hardships experienced by thousands of Americans who lost their jobs as a result of the events of September 11. It will extend the coverage period and expand unemployment compensation to individuals previously ineligible to receive compensation. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit represents the priorities of the American people--winning the war against terrorism and protecting the safety and security of every American. I urge all of my colleagues to vote against H.R. 3090 and its substitute and to vote for the motion to recommit so this Congress' committees may quickly begin their work to identify and provide for all of our national needs.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, the week of September 17-23 has been officially designated as Constitution Week. This marks the 214th anniversary of the signing of our Constitution. The guardian of our liberties, our Constitution established our republic as a self-governing nation dedicated to rule by law. This document is the cornerstone of our freedom. It was written to protect every American from the abuse of power by government. Without that restraint, our founders believed the republic would perish. The ideals upon which our Constitution is based are reinforced each day by the success of our political system to which it gave birth. The success of our way of government requires an enlightened citizenry. Constitution Week provides an opportunity for all Americans to recall the achievements of our founders, the nature of limited government, and the rights, privileges and responsibilities of citizenship. It provides us the opportunity to be better informed about our rights, freedoms and duties as citizens. Mr. Speaker, at this time I particularly want to take note of the outstanding work of the Prairie Rose Chapter of the Kansas Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution, which is actively involved in the Third Congressional District in events this week commemorating Constitution Week. The Prairie Rose Chapter has been involved with this effort in our communities for a number of years and I commend them for doing so. Our Constitution has served us well for over 200 years, but it will continue as a strong, vibrant, and vital foundation for freedom only so long as the American people remain dedicated to the basic principles on which it rests. Thus, as the United States continues into its third century of constitutional democracy, let us renew our commitment to, in the words of our Constitution's preamble: ``form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . . '' I know that the Prairie Rose Chapter of the Kansas Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution joins with me in urging all Americans to renew their commitment to, and understanding of, our Constitution, particularly during our current time of crisis, when Americans have been attacked on our own soil by terrorists who do not recognize the rule of human law.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America (GCSAA) on the occasion of its 75th anniversary. The GCSAA is the professional association for the men and women who manage and maintain golf facilities in the United States and worldwide. From its headquarters in Lawrence, Kansas, the association carries out its mission to serve its members, advance their profession and enhance the enjoyment, growth and vitality of the game of golf. The GCSAA was founded on September 13, 1926, when a group of 60 visionary greenkeepers met at the Sylvania Country Club in Toledo, Ohio, with the purpose of forming an organization that would inform and educate its membership and strive for a better future for those who manage the playing fields of golf, Originally called the National Association of Greenkeepers, the association has grown to more than 21,000 individual members in the United States and 65 other countries. GCSAA and its members are leaders in the golf community. As in 1926, the advancement of the superintendent profession, and the game and business of golf, are at the heart of everything the GCSAA does today. GCSAA offers numerous educational and informational programs to serve an ever-growing membership--education that spans the scientific, technical, environmental, professional development and resource management aspects of the profession. In recent years GCSAA has expanded its role so that it not only serves its members, but also the people, organizations and institutions allied to the game of golf. From funding university turfgrass research, to promoting the participation of youth, minorities and persons with disabilities in the game, to being a major participant in the arena of environmental stewardship, GCSAA continues to take an active approach in making golf better. Today the superintendent is recognized as a key to golfer enjoyment and to the economic vitality of the golf course. GCSAA has spent the last 75 years advancing the golf course superintendent profession and enhancing the game of golf and will only continue these great achievements in the years to come. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to congratulate the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America as they celebrate 75 wonderful years of association history and heritage.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the world was different. Today and tomorrow and forever our America is changed. Today, there are no Republicans, no Democrats. Today, we all are Americans. May God hold in his arms the victims and their families who suffered these terrorist attacks. Buildings and bodies may be destroyed. But freedom will survive. Because freedom burns in the heart of every American. And freedom burns in the hearts of freedom loving people throughout the world. May God bless those who fight for freedom. and may God bless our United States of America.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make clear my concerns about the legislation before us today. I absolutely oppose the cloning of human beings for any purpose. Even the thought of human cloning is immoral, unethical and repugnant. I am concerned, however, that in our zeal to outlaw this abominable practice, we have overstepped necessary prohibitions and have acted to stop lifesaving research before it even begins. Today the House has failed to make the important distinction between reproductive cloning that creates a human being and the use of cloning research technology that does not create a human being. An outright ban on such research technology, which scientists believe can lead to treatments or cures for currently deadly diseases, is shortsighted in the extreme. Even more disturbing, H.R. 2505 goes further to ban the importation of any therapies created from cloning research technology. This means that any product or therapy developed anywhere in the world using this technology, could not be used by American patients. Consider for a moment a cure for Parkinson's, diabetes or ALS developed in the United Kingdom using cloning research technology--Americans would be banned, under penalty of prison and a $1 million fine, from using that therapy. That is wrong. Today, I supported an alternative that would have banned reproductive cloning while specifically protecting therapeutic research cloning by maintaining the status quo--private, strictly regulated research. This alternative, offered by Representative Greenwood, would have allowed scientists to pursue promising research that could show how to create stem cells from a person's own DNA, avoiding problems with immune system rejection. The alternative would have allowed scientists to study how stem cells become specialized, and thus provide insight into the mechanisms responsible for abnormal cells that result in some cancers and birth defects. It would have allowed research into how cells age and are regulated, potentially leading a treatment or a cure of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other degenerative diseases of the brain or spinal cord. Unfortunately, this alternative failed. The opportunities at the doorstep of medical research are unparalleled in our history. H.R. 2505, although well intentioned, simply goes too far. Mr. Speaker, it is possible to ban human cloning without stopping lifesaving research and that is what this House should do.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to former Governor Joan Finney of Kansas, who passed away on July 28th in her hometown of Topeka. Governor Finney was an extraordinary woman, a pioneer, a populist, and my friend. Governor Finney served the people of Kansas for sixteen years as our elected State Treasurer and then was elected as the first woman Governor of Kansas, defeating her two predecessors in that office while on her way to achieving that goal. Joan Marie McEnroy Finney was born on February 12, 1925. Her father abandoned her pregnant mother and two older sisters in 1924, and her mother raised the three girls by teaching piano, voice and harp. Governor Finney herself was an accomplished musician and often played her harp at political and social events. She graduated from Manhattan High School in 1942 and earned a bachelor's degree in economic history from Washburn University in Topeka in 1978. Her political career began in 1953 when U.S. Senator Frank Carlson of Kansas hired her as a secretary in his Washington, D.C., office. She returned to Topeka where she worked for Carlson until he retired in 1969; in the following year Finney was appointed Shawnee County Election Commissioner, where she served until 1972. In 1972, Finney sought the Republican nomination for U.S. Congress in the Second District of Kansas. Two years later, she switched parties and was elected State Treasurer as a Democrat, winning re-election three times. I first got to know her when we were both statewide candidates on the Kansas ballot in 1986; I lost and she won. I know from firsthand experience on the campaign trail with her that she possessed an amazing ability to remember names and personal details about virtually every Kansan she encountered. In a recent interview with the Topeka Capital-Journal, former Kansas Democratic Party Chairman Jim Parrish noted that Finney had switched parties because of the way the Republican Party in Kansas had treated her: She was told generally by the party that, ``We're not ready for a woman.'' . . . I remember her telling me she counselled with Frank Carlson before she did it, and then proceeded to make the change. I go all the way back to the 1974 treasurer's campaign with Joan Finney, and there's not a stronger, more determined woman in all of Kansas political life, ever. And among women I would say she stands tall in terms of being able to set her sights on an objective and go for it in a world where, when she started, it wasn't particularly easy for women. The Kansas City Star had it right recently, when they wrote: People credited Finney's success to her campaign style, kidding that she had crossed every creek in Kansas. And she was the master one-on-one politician, grasping a voter's hand in both of hers. She saw herself as a populist who listened to everybody. The Associated Press quoted Republican State Senator David Adkins of Leawood, Kansas, as saying, You had to see Joan Finney work a bean feed to understand her appeal. She would walk in and she already knew half the people there, and the other half, before she left they would think she was their best friend. Her good friend, Kansas Senate Democratic Leader Anthony Hensley hit the nail on the head when he said, She literally went door-to-door all of her political career. She'd walk in the parades, speak at the chili suppers, campaign in bowling alleys and grocery stores, just picking up bits and pieces from the people. In 1991, the Kickapoo Tribe of Kansas gave her the name White Morning Star Woman after she became the first governor to issue an official proclamation to recognize the sovereignty of American Indian tribes. The state's four tribes and Indian leaders nationwide admired Governor Finney for supporting tribal efforts to open casinos on reservations as an income source for them and for being sympathetic to their efforts to assert their sovereignty. As Governor, she appointed women to an unprecedented number of top jobs in state government. On average, at least half of her cabinet members were women, and her staff of advisors was almost exclusively female. As Kansas Insurance Commissioner Kathleen Sebelius recently commented, I don't think there's any question that Joan Finney was one of the most remarkable politicians I've ever known. She changed the face of politics in this state and made it possible for women like me to be seriously considered for statewide office. She pushed women along every step of the way.... She has an impressive place in American history and an incredible place in Kansas history. During her four years as Governor, the state rewrote its law for distributing money to public schools, revised its abortion law, overhauled its workers' compensation system, re-enacted a capital punishment law, and signed four compacts that allowed Indian tribes in northeast Kansas to open casinos. Legislators rejected her proposals to amend the state constitution to provide for public initiatives and referendums. Finney also took credit for opening international markets to dozens of Kansas businesses due to a series of international trade missions she undertook. Most importantly, though, Joan Finney will be remembered as a true populist leader in the finest sense of the word. As she said to the Topeka Capital-Journal shortly before her election as Governor: I believe the people should be supreme in all things. Even if I don't agree and the majority want a certain issue and believe in a certain issue, I accept that and I will stand by the people. Governor Finney was a genuine Kansas pioneer, particularly for women in public life. She truly loved people and the people of Kansas loved and respected her. As Commissioner Sebelius noted, She had the heart of a true Kansan--someone with strong values, ideals and pride. We should all be so lucky to live like that. We may never see another leader in our state with her determination, self-confidence and independent spirit, and that truly is our loss. Governor Joan Finney is survived by her husband, Spencer Finney, and their three children, Sally Finney, Dick Finney, and Mary Holladay. I join with them in mourning the loss of this unique, incredible woman.

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 $34 billion. H.R. 4 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. 4 includes a provision based upon a bill that I introduced during both the 106th and 107th 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. 794] was modified slightly and included in the Ways and Means portion of H.R. 4. I have worked for months to ensure H.R. 794'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 $34 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. 4 contains tax incentives for domestic production from marginal wells that I have supported in the past and that would increase our national energy supply. Last month I supported funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP]. I would like to support the LIHEAP reauthorization included in H.R. 4. I made a promise to senior citizens and other people in my district that I would not spend Social Security and Medicare Trust funds. That's a promise I intend to keep. Two months ago, we were hailing surpluses ``as far as the eye can see.'' There was even concern that we not pay down our national debt too quickly. Today, we are watching these surpluses disappear before our very eyes. Two days ago, the House passed an appropriations bill that spent $1.3 billion more than the budget resolution. I voted against the bill because in order to do this, we will have to borrow from other priority programs or from the Medicare and Social Security surplus funds. 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's 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 falls 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 and 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. 4 are not accounted for in the budget resolution and, despite 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 fiscal integrity; I urge my colleagues to either find a way to pay for these tax cuts or to vote no on H.R. 4.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to request that my signature be removed from discharge petition number 0002. This petition moves to discharge the Committee on Rules from the consideration of H. Res. 165, a resolution providing for the consideration of the bill H.R. 1468. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) recent action to expand price restrictions imposed in California on wholesale electricity to cover 10 other Western states. Though FERC could have exercised its statutory authority to set ``just and reasonable'' wholesale rates several months ago, I hope that the Commission's June 19 Order will soon achieve the intended goal of ``correct[ing] dysfunctions in the wholesale power markets operated by the Independent System Operator [ISO] and California Power Exchange [PX].'' In response to FERC's June 19 Order, Senator Dianne Feinstein [D-CA] and Gordon Smith [R-OR] stopped advocating consideration of their legislation [S. 764] that would force FERC to follow its statutory mandate to set ``just and reasonable'' wholesale power rates. I agree with Senator Smith that FERC's action renders S. 764 ``substantially moot.'' In light of FERC's recent actions and the decision by Senators Feinstein and Smith not to push for consideration of their legislation, I believe that House action on this matter is no longer warranted at this time. The House needs to exercise patience and wait for a period of perhaps a few months to see if FERC's June 19 Order exerts downward pressure on wholesale prices.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2620, the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2002. On balance, this bill adequately addresses our national priorities and funding needs for housing, veterans' benefits and scientific research. H.R. 2620 provides modest increases for HUD programs and activities--$1.4 billion more than last year. These increases will help address the most basic housing needs of our low- and moderate-income citizens. This measure fully funds VA medical health care for our veterans and provides a $1 billion increase over spending levels for FY2001, while almost tripling the funding provided for major VA construction projects. A separate provision appropriates $300 million for safety and seismic repairs to VA medical facilities and the rehabilitation of VA research facilities. One important aspect of the bill is the extra $128 million over FY01 for the Veterans Benefits Administration to expedite claims processing, which is a growing concern among veterans. Additionally, I have been concerned about proposals to require military retirees to choose between military or VA health care systems, but this measure includes an amendment prohibiting the VA from using funds in FY2002 to force military retirees to permanently choose between the VA or military health care systems. Finally, H.R. 2620 prioritizes funding for our essential research needs by increasing funds for the National Science Foundation to $4.8 billion, $414 million more than the current appropriation and $368 million more than the President's request. As a member of the House Science Subcommittee on Research, I am pleased that this appropriation will allow the NSF to go forward with substantial new and ongoing initiatives in information technology, biodiversity, nanotechnology, the mathematical sciences and the social and behavioral sciences. Mr. Chairman, while all of these programs are funded at levels that warrant the support of every single member of Congress, I have serious concerns about one provision in this bill--a $1.3 billion emergency designation for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Designating these funds an emergency is a clear violation of our budget rules and violates all principles of fiscal responsibility. While I agree that the request for $1.3 billion in emergency relief for the damage created by Tropical Storm Allison is a true emergency, the budget resolution does not allow for the allocation of emergency designations in regular appropriations bills unless those funds are offset. Under this Congress' budget rules, this bill requires a waiver from the Rules Committee as well as clearance from the Budget Committee because of this emergency designation. These waivers were provided, which irresponsibly circumvents our budget process. More worrisome, however, is the fact that this Congress is perilously close to spending Medicare and Social Security surplus funds. I am concerned that by releasing these funds under the emergency designation--without offsets--this Congress sets an early precedent in the FY '02 appropriations process to spend more than budget resolution allocations. As you are aware, recent press reports suggest that the updated economic forecast the Congressional Budget Office will release in August is likely to show no available surplus beyond the Social Security and Medicare trust funds in fiscal year 2002 and that Congress may have to dip into those trust funds by nearly $41 billion in FY 2003. More troublesome is the fact that these shortfalls do not even account for many of our other stated needs like a comprehensive energy policy, a prescription drug benefit, and the President's request for additional defense spending. 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. I will honor that commitment. Spending restraint, fiscal responsibility, and honoring our commitments do not come about by good intentions, but by resolute actions. Mr. Chairman, in an effort to honor that commitment, I will adhere to the levels in the budget resolution enacted by a majority of this Congress. I will oppose any efforts to increase spending beyond those levels without offsets. This includes any emergency designation, regardless of its merit. The VA-HUD appropriations bill violated the budget resolution and, despite the many good programs contained in this bill, it busts the budget and threatens the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. I urge my colleagues to honor their commitment to protect these funds; I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 2620.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my grave concerns with the bill before us today. I have seen firsthand and know well the vital role that churches, mosques, synagogues and other religious institutions play in our communities. I believe, however, that both H.R. 7 and the Democratic substitute offer us a false choice and fail to protect our constitutional rights. For more than 200 years, the U.S. Constitution has protected religious freedom by upholding each American's right to free exercise of religion and maintaining a separation between church and state. H.R. 7 would break down that historic wall. Although the bill specifically states that government funds should not be used for worship or proselytization, meaningful safeguards to prevent such action are not included in the provisions. Indeed, as this bill is written, safeguards would be impossible. For example, if the purpose of a program is to end addiction by the adoption of a specific faith, it is impossible to separate the government service (drug and alcohol counseling) from the message of faith (proselytization). Even an ``opt-out,'' which provides for a secular alternative to the services, does not change the fact that this bill provides government funding for religious activities. Furthermore, both H.R. 7 and the Democratic substitute would provide direct funding to houses of worship. H.R. 7 gives federal agencies, at the discretion of the Secretary, the ability to take all the funding for a program and convert it into vouchers to religious organizations. This alarming provision takes $47 billion in federal funds away from the oversight of elected representatives in Congress. Furthermore, the bill expressly permits federal funding of worship and proselytization with these ``indirect funds.'' The Democratic substitute, although it attempts to close the voucher loophole, does not alleviate my concerns with direct government funding of religion. I am also deeply concerned that efforts to make religious organizations dependent on federal funds will cause them to lose their independence, autonomy and unique voice in our society. With public funding comes public scrutiny and accountability. Also, the provisions of H.R. 7 will inevitably put the federal government in the position of choosing one religion over another in awarding federal grants and contracts. Despite the fact that the bill assures us that the awarding of charitable choice funds would not constitute an ``endorsement'' of a certain religion, it takes little to imagine what will happen when a federal agency is forced to choose between two equally meritorious grants from different religious groups. Even worse will be the consequences when a cabinet secretary, by fiat, turns the program into a ``voucher.'' A more egregious violation of the Establishment Clause can hardly be imagined. I cannot state strongly enough my belief that religious organizations are an important part of our social fabric and provide absolutely vital services to people in need. Those services already can be provided by religious organizations in a way that is constitutionally sound. I encourage my colleagues to take this bill back to the drawing board and build on that record of service.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney invited me to participate in an event in Kansas City, Missouri, that took note of the impending mailing of tax rebate checks to millions of Americans, including 877,000 Kansans, as the result of the enactment of H.R. 1836, which I supported. For this reason, I was absent during the consideration of H.R. 2216, which made supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2001. Had I been present for rollcall 256, which was final passage of this conference report, I would have voted ``yes''.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 36, which proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. For over two hundred years, the Bill of Rights of our Constitution has been the cornerstone of our great nation and the source of our basic freedoms and rights. Our democracy has withstood many tests of our freedoms, and has been strengthened as a result. The occasional, random, despicable acts of public desecration of our flag present another such test. The American flag is a symbol for liberty and justice, for freedom of speech and expression and all of the other rights we cherish. But as important as the symbol may be, more important are the ideals and principles which the symbol represents. That our nation can tolerate dissension and even disrespect for our flag is proof of the strength of our nation. If we amend our Bill of Rights to protect the flag we would forsake the very freedoms that the flag symbolizes. On May 18, 1999, General Colin Powell, who has dedicated his life to serving our country, sent a letter to Senator Patrick Leahy sharing his reasons for opposing this constitutional amendment. Senator Leahy entered that letter in to the Congressional Record on March 29, 2000. The text of this poignant and thought-provoking letter is attached. I love our country. I love our flag--and the principles for which it stands. By voting against this proposed amendment, we vote for the rights and freedoms that make our country great and distinguish our country from virtually every other country in the world. Gen. Colin L. Powell, USA (Ret), Alexandria, VA, May 18, 1999. Hon. Patrick Leahy, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Leahy: Thank you for your recent letter asking my views on the proposed flag protection amendment. I love our flag, our Constitution and our country with a love that has no bounds. I defended all three for 35 years as a soldier and was willing to give my life in their defense. Americans revere their flag as a symbol of the Nation. Indeed, it is because of that reverence that the amendment is under consideration. Few countries in the world would think of amending their Constitution for the purpose of protecting such a symbol. We are rightfully outraged when anyone attacks or desecrates our flag. Few Americans do such things and when they do they are subject to the rightful condemnation of their fellow citizens. They may be destroying a piece of cloth, but they do no damage to our system of freedom which tolerates such desecration. If they are destroying a flag that belongs to someone else, that's a prosecutable crime. If it is a flag they own, I really don't want to amend the Constitution to prosecute someone for foolishly desecrating their own property. We should condemn them and pity them instead. I understand how strongly so many of my fellow veterans and citizens feel about the flag and I understand the powerful sentiment in state legislatures for such an amendment. I feel the same sense of outrage. But I step back from amending the Constitution to relieve that outrage. The First Amendment exists to insure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous. I would not amend the great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will still be flying proudly long after they have slunk away. * * * If I were a member of Congress, I would not vote for the proposed amendment and would fully understand and respect the views of those who would. For or against, we all love our flag with equal devotion. Sincerely, Colin L. Powell. P.S. The attached 1989 article by a Vietnam POW gave me further inspiration for my position. When They Burned The Flag Back Home: Thoughts of a Former POW (By James H. Warner) In March of 1973, when we were released from a prisoner of war camp in North Vietnam, we were flown to Clark Air Force base in the Philippines. As I stepped out of the aircraft I looked up and saw the flag. I caught my breath, then, as tears filled my eyes, I saluted it. I never loved my country more than at that moment. Although I have received the Silver Star Medal and two Purple Hearts, they were nothing compared with the gratitude I felt then for having been allowed to serve the cause of freedom. Because the mere sight of the flag meant so much to me when I saw it for the first time after 5\1/2\ years, it hurts me to see other Americans willfully desecrate it. But I have been in a Communist prison where I looked into the pit of hell. I cannot compromise on freedom. It hurts to see the flag burned, but I part company with those who want to punish the flag burners. Let me explain myself. Early in the imprisonment the Communists told us that we did not have to stay there. If we would only admit we were wrong, if we would only apologize, we could be released early. If we did not, we would be punished. A handful accepted, most did not. In our minds, early release under those conditions would amount to a betrayal, of our comrades of our country and of our flag. Because we would not say the words they wanted us to say, they made our lives wretched. Most of us were tortured, and some of my comrades died. I was tortured for most of the summer of 1969. I developed beriberi from malnutrition. I had long bouts of dysentery. I was infested with intestinal parasites. I spent 13 months in solitary confinement. Was our cause worth all of this. Yes, it was worth all this and more. Rose Wilder Lane, in her magnificent book ``The Discovery of Freedom,'' said there are two fundamental truths that men must know in order to be free. They must know that all men are brothers, and they must know that all men are born free. Once men accept these two ideas, they will never accept bondage. The power of these ideas explains why it was illegal to teach slaves to read. One can teach these ideas, even in a Communist prison camp. Marxists believe that ideas are merely the product of material conditions; change those material conditions, and one will change the ideas they produce. They tried to ``re- educate'' us. If we could show them that we would not abandon our belief in fundamental principles, then we could prove the falseness of their doctrine. We could subvert them by teaching them about freedom through our example. We could show them the power of ideas. I did not appreciate this power before I was a prisoner of war. I remember one interrogation when I was shown a photograph of some Americans protesting the war by burning a flag. ``There,'' the officer said, ``People in your country protest against your cause. That proves that you are wrong.'' ``No,'' I said, ``That proves that I am right. In my country we are not afraid of freedom, even if it means that people disagree with us.'' The officer was on his feet in an instant, his face purple with rage. He smashed his fist onto the table and screamed at me to shut up. While he was ranting I was astonished to see pain, compounded by fear, in his eyes. I have never forgotten that look, nor have I forgotten the satisfaction I felt at using his tool, the picture of the burning flag, against him. Aneurin Bevan, former official of the British Labor Party, was once asked by Nikita Khrushchev how the British definition of democracy differed from the Soviet view. Bevan responded, forcefully, that if Khrushchev really wanted to know the difference, he should read the funeral oration of Pericles. In that speech, recorded in the Second Book of Thucydides' ``History of the Peloponnesian War,'' Pericles contrasted democratic Athens with totalitarian Sparta. Unlike, the Spartans, he said, the Athenians did not fear freedom. Rather, they viewed freedom as the very source of their strength. As it was for Athens, so it is for America--our freedom is not to be feared, but our freedom is our strength. We don't need to amend the Constitution in order to punish those who burn our flag. They burn the flag because they hate America and they are afraid of freedom. What better way to hurt them than with the subversive idea of freedom? Spread freedom. The flag in Dallas was burned to protest the nomination of Ronald Reagan, and he told us how to spread the idea of freedom when he said that we should turn America into ``a city shining on a hill, a light to all nations.'' Don't be afraid of freedom, it is the best weapon we have.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, because I was en route to attending the wedding of my oldest son, Todd, in Hungary, during the late afternoon of July 12, 2001, I was unavoidably absent for vote number 228, on H. Res. 188, which would have provided for House floor consideration of various campaign finance regulatory overhaul proposals. For this purpose, I was granted a leave of absence by the Speaker, after 4 p.m. on July 12, and for the balance of the week. Had I been present for vote number 228, 1 would have voted ``no.''

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to your attention the outstanding career of Chuck Kurtz, who on July 20th concludes a distinguished 33-year career with The Olathe Daily News, which serves my congressional district. Chuck started with The Daily News as a photographer, and later moved to sports writer, sports editor, features editor, seniors editor, and concluded his career as managing editor. At a retirement party that will be held at The Daily News' office on this Friday, the following letter will be presented to Chuck on my behalf; I am pleased to have this opportunity to share this correspondence with my colleagues: Dear Chuck, I want to add my voice to the chorus of those who are praising you on the occasion of your ``retirement.'' I'm using the term ``retirement'' loosely, because I think we all know that though you may enjoy a few weeks of fishing or travel, you will soon return to making a positive impact upon the lives of those around you--just as you have done for so many years at The Daily News. I have enjoyed working with you over the years, first as Johnson County District Attorney, and now as a Member of Congress. Needless to say, we have often found ourselves on opposite sides of the issues. You wouldn't be the Chuck Kurtz I know if we would have agreed on everything! But no matter the issue or whether or not we agreed, you always understood that there were at least two sides to every story, and that there may be good reasons for individuals to believe and act as they do. I have seen this not only in your writing, but also in your You have not only brought a sense of civility to your profession, but you have also brought something of which those in my line of work are often in need--common sense. This is why I will miss you most, and why I think the readers of The Daily News will, also. Common sense says you shouldn't forget why you do what you do, and you never have. One can tell you are a journalist because you want the public to have the facts they need to make good decisions about their collective future, both locally and nationally. There is honor in this, and I know from first-hand experience that you have had great--and altogether positive--influence on the direction our community has taken. Thank you for your service. Again, congratulations on your ``retirement,'' and I am looking forward to running into you again soon. Very truly yours, Dennis Moore, Member of Congress.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on June 25, 2001, I inadvertently failed to record my vote on vote No. 4187, H. Res. 99. This motion to suspend the rules adopted a resolution that would urge Lebanon, Syria and Iran to push Hezbollah to allow Red Cross staff to visit four Israelis abducted by that group in Lebanon last year. I strongly support this resolution and intended to vote ``aye.''

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong support of a very important piece of legislation, H.R. 2133. On May 17, 1954, in the case of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court unanimously declared that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal and, as such, violate the 14th amendment to our United States Constitution, a Constitution which guarantees to all citizens equal protection of the laws. This was a critical point in time, because it began an era of social responsibility, equity, and justice that this country had not seen since the end of the Civil War. The legacy of the Brown decision is its impact on the whole of American society and its contribution to the civil rights movement. When you think of the civil rights movement, the 1954 Brown decision is clearly a watershed. Would we have had a Rosa Parks in 1955 without a Reverend Oliver L. Brown fighting for equal education in Topeka, Kansas in 1951. Maybe, but without the definitive court ruling of what was right, what was constitutional, we would not have desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas. The Brown decision sliced the issue of inequality wide open, putting it in the morning newspaper and on the evening news. Brown is important for four very basic reasons. Number one, it was the beginning of the end of racial segregation authorized by law in this country. Number two, it overturned laws permitting segregated public schools in Kansas and 20 other States. Number three, it overturned a previous United States Supreme Court decision of 1896, Plessy v. Ferguson. The Plessy decision gave us the infamous doctrine of separate but equal, a legal fiction as we know now. It defended the sovereign power of the people of the United States to protect their natural rights and their human rights from random restrictions and limits imposed by State and local governments. These rights are recognized in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Using the Brown decision as an educational vehicle will teach children and communities alike to respect and honor those who fight for what is right. Creating a commission to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Brown decision will also make sure that an important event in United States history does not become just a simple footnote. I would like to thank Cheryl Brown Henderson, the daughter of Reverend Oliver L. Brown, for what she has done in creating the Brown Foundation and what she continues to do in helping her representatives in Kansas draft this bill. It is through people like her and her father, and I would add our colleague here in Congress, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), that the civil rights movement blossomed. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank my esteemed colleague, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), for his hard work in promoting this legislation.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 877.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express both my support and concern for provisions of H.R. 1, the Leave No Child Behind Act. Since taking office, President Bush has made education reform legislation a centerpiece of his administration's domestic policy. I sincerely believe that the President has the very best of intentions to address real problems in our nation's schools. The legislation before us today represents a great departure from current federal education policy--a policy that contains more than 50 duplicative programs and funding streams and burdens our administrators with paperwork. H.R. 1 provides unprecedented flexibility to local school districts, while retaining the overall purpose behind federal funding by targeting it to the students and districts that need them the most. It reduces the paperwork burden currently imposed by federal programs so that school administrators have time to do what they were hired to do--educate our kids. I am extremely concerned, however, with the provision of the bill mandating yearly testing in grades 3 through 8. Administrators, parents and teachers in my district have expressed concern to me regarding the testing provisions of H.R. 1. They point out that Kansas currently tests students in order to determine progress and close the achievement gap. I understand that the President believes that yearly testing is absolutely essential to tracking student performance and promoting accountability. I share his belief that we should closely track the progress of students, but I am very concerned that this bill does not include adequate funding for school districts to implement the tests yearly. I understand that administering these tests could cost the state of Kansas nearly $10 million per year, a sum that is not adequately provided for in this bill or in the President's budget. Recently, the Kansas State Legislature completed its business for the year, having faced a revenue shortfall of over $200 million, directly resulting in a lack of adequate funding for Kansas schools. Even Governor Graves, reflecting on large tax cuts of previous years, recommended a tax increase to meet the revenue shortfall for education funding. Unfortunately, the Governor's proposal failed and the State Legislature has still not adequately funded education in Kansas. Like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, I am extremely concerned that this bill, although well-meaning, will shift an additional unfunded financial burden to local school districts that are already struggling. We in Congress need to accept that real education reform will require a substantial investment on the federal level, and not a cost-shifting strategy that leaves local school districts holding the bag. A serious dialogue needs to begin, between Congress, the public, and those concerned with the quality of education about the value and efficacy of testing, the frequency of testing and the need for local authority for testing. We in Congress should listen to the concerns of teachers, administrators and parents about ``over-testing'' and incentives to ``teach to the test.'' These concerns are often easily dismissed, but I believe that they are valid and have not been adequately addressed by those who support yearly testing. The White House has made it clear that without the testing component, this bill would not be signed into law. Knowing this, I voted against the Hoekstra/Frank amendment to strip the testing provisions from the bill, despite grave reservations about the testing component. I am supporting this bill because I believe that it is fundamentally sound and bipartisan. It greatly improves current law by providing increased flexibility to local school districts while maintaining the federal focus on disadvantaged students. I support, and wish to encourage, the efforts of the President and the Democratic and Republican leaders who have worked together on this legislation. Drafting legislation is a very difficult process, and I doubt that all parties involved will ever be completely satisfied with the final product. The bill is not perfect, but it is extremely good, and I think it would be a mistake to sacrifice the careful balance of the underlying bill and go back to the drawing board. I believe that this bill can be further improved, before it arrives on the President's desk, by addressing the valid concerns that I have mentioned. I will continue to work with my colleagues on the conference committee to ensure that the concerns of my school administrators, teachers and parents are addressed.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the conference report on H. Con. Res. 83, the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2002. This conference agreement was developed in a manner which abused the congressional budget process. Consider the following: The debate in the House on the tax cut contained in this budget resolution has already taken place. We were forced to vote on these cuts--which far exceed the levels contained in this conference agreement--months before we will understand the full impact of what we were considering. The House was later forced to consider its version of the budget resolution prior to receiving the President's budget. The Senate Budget Committee was never afforded the opportunity to consider this bill; rather the committee of jurisdiction was circumvented using a questionable procedure. Minority House and Senate Members were explicitly noticed that they would not be included in negotiations between the two chambers to work out differences between the competing versions of the budget. Finally, in the most recent example of an abuse of power, the House leadership filed late last week a resolution only moments before it was to be adopted in the dead-of-the night, without a Congressional Budget Office analysis or a Joint Tax Committee scoring of the tax cut. Mr. Speaker, in its haste to rush through a conference report before anyone had a chance to look at the details, two pages were lost that happened to contain language crucial to the compromise that persuaded moderates to agree to this budget. As a result, members, including the minority, Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement calls for $661.3 billion in discretionary spending for fiscal year 2002. Instead of making recommendations for the level of funding for our national priorities, however, the conference agreement lists CBO baseline levels, and then uses a plug number of $6 billion in a catchall function known as ``allowances'' to make the numbers for 2002 add up. These unrealistic discretionary spending levels will result in a year-end conflict over funding levels for appropriations bills, much like those we have seen in years past. Undoubtedly, we will soon be faced with a chaotic budget process that drags on into the fall that produces much higher spending than would have been necessary had we reached agreement on realistic spending levels within the context of the budget resolution. Moreover, if one takes these spending numbers at face value, then this majority has broken its promise to increase funding for education and the critical research needs at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The majority will argue that the function numbers in the conference agreement do not represent intended policy and that increases for education and NIH can be provided by the Appropriations Committee. But if appropriators can change the recommended levels, what purpose does this budget resolution serve? The troubling conclusion is that either these increases will come at the expense of other programs or we will once again far exceed the spending targets outlined in this resolution. More troubling than the unrealistic spending levels are the items missing from this budget. Last week, the President established a Commission on Social Security reform and announced his commitment to pursuing a national missile defense system. Nobody knows how much either of these broad initiatives will cost and the budget fails to account for either of these items. Also conspicuously missing from this conference report are funds for debt reduction. This budget commits funds dedicated to the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds to debt reduction without devoting a single dollar of our projected on-budget surpluses towards paying down our national debt. This is like a family using one credit card to pay off another and then claiming that their debt was paid. The American people will not be deceived by this manipulation. Finally, there is one more missing page that explains how all of our other priorities, including education, emergencies, defense increases and future tax cuts, will fit into the so-called contingency fund. Indeed, the overall tax and spending totals in this budget will virtually eliminate the non-Social Security, non-Medicare budget surplus. Any additional expenditures as expected in defense; any downward revisions of the surplus projections that may occur due to our slowing economy, increased unemployment, decreased labor productivity, and lower-than expected revenue collections; or, any additional tax cuts above and beyond those contained in this so-called agreement--and I have reason to believe that these will occur since the Secretary of the Treasury testified last week that he would be willing to consider tax breaks that go beyond the budget resolution on a case-by-case basis--will return this nation back to the era of deficits, tapping our Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. Mr. Speaker, on May 1, 2001, I sent the Chairman of the Budget Committee a letter indicating I could support the proposed budget resolution provided that the resolution cut taxes no more than $1.25 trillion, set realistic spending levels, and maintained a commitment to debt reduction by ensuring that any remaining on-budget surpluses be devoted to debt reduction. These conditions were not only not met, but there was not even an opportunity to discuss them. Because of these concerns about process, unrealistic spending levels, the failure to reduce our national debt and the very real threat this budget poses to our Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds, I will vote against this resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same.