Dennis Moore

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To the gentleman from Texas, I say that until 2002, we had in the Congress here budget rules one of which was called PAYGO, and it required that if we were going to initiate a new spending program or a new tax cut, we had to find a way to pay for it. This year we have eliminated that and changed it only if we have a new spending proposal, we have to find a way to pay for it, but not a new tax cut. I am on the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Financial Services, and at least twice a year I have a chance to talk to a fellow by the name of Alan Greenspan, and every time Chairman Greenspan appears, he tells us how important fiscally responsibility is, and he advocates reinstituting PAYGO rules, which expired in 2002, and that means as to new spending programs and as to tax cuts. And when the gentleman says, and I say this respectfully, our side has always spent more money, well, to the gentleman from Texas I say our side is not in control of the House, the Senate, or the Presidency. Your side is. And you can stop new spending if you want to do that. So I say, please, in all sincerity, join us, pass this motion, make it apply to new spending proposals as well as new tax cuts so we can get out of this horrible deficit position we are in in this country and not pass this horrible debt on to our children and grandchildren. And Chairman Greenspan, when he testified in front of our committee for the past 6 years I have been in Congress, he has said invariably this, he says this over and over. He says one of the most important things Congress can do is live within a budget and practice fiscal responsibility. And what Chairman Greenspan says to me and to the members of the Committee on the Budget and Committee on Financial Services each year when he testifies is this: when we are in a slowdown economy, as we have been in the past couple of years, not if, but when this economy takes off, if we are not in a fiscally responsible position, we could see interest rates start to go up dramatically. In fact, yesterday we saw them go up one quarter of one point, but they could go up dramatically. I am not suggesting it is going to happen like this, but I think some of us in this Chamber are old enough to remember the late 1970s. We had interest rates in this country of 14, 16, 17 percent, which would be absolutely devastating for the real estate industry, for business generally, and for consumer borrowing. I hope we never see that again. But if we keep on the course we are on right now of fiscal irresponsibility with the largest deficit in our Nation's history, with the largest debt in our Nation's history, we could see interest rates go up to 8, 9, 10 percent. I am afraid if that happens, that would be, again, devastating for the business economy, devastating for real estate, and devastating for consumer borrowing. We owe our country better than that. We owe our children and future generations better than that. And I ask the gentleman, please, join us in support of this motion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by my friend from Texas, but the only person in this chamber tonight, in this debate, the only person in this chamber who has talked about raising taxes is the gentleman from Texas. I certainly have not, and I do not intend to, because that is not what my intention is at all, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to raise taxes. We do not want to raise taxes. What we want to do is get our budget back in balance and eliminate the death tax on the future of our children and grandchildren. My friend from Texas, across the aisle, talks about making some hard decisions. I would challenge him to pass this motion to instruct tonight and let us sit down together, Republicans and Democrats, and put aside all talk about raising taxes and work on identifying where there is waste, fraud and abuse in our budget and eliminating that. We can do that. Again, I am more than willing to. This motion intends to extend the marriage penalty relief, the child tax credit, extend the 10 percent tax credit and AMT relief. All of those are tax cuts that we want to extend. Not raise taxes, cut taxes. But we need to work together, Mr. Speaker, to find ways that we can eliminate this horrible mortgage, this horrible debt we are putting on the future of our children and grandchildren. The folks across the aisle act as if this is just no big deal. Just no big deal. But I am concerned that, as the baby boomers in the next 4 to 5 years start to retire, our children are going to take on the debt of providing for Social Security for the baby boomers. That is the way it has always been. That is the way the system has always worked. In addition to the debt of the baby boomers, they are going to have the obligation of taking on this debt tax, which is a billion dollars a day now that we pay interest on the national debt, not to mention, by then, a $10 trillion to $12 trillion national debt and a deficit of who knows how much. When my friends across the aisle talk about fiscal responsibility, we should mention that the debt this year, $7.35 trillion, the debt that stands for our country right now, the deficit, $422 billion, is the highest in our Nation's history. The highest ever. And I am not being partisan when I say that. Again, I ask the gentleman from Texas and my friends across the aisle to come together with us, and let us sit down and figure out a way to make this work. Let us reinstitute PAYGO rules, and let us make sure that we are in a fiscally responsible and balanced budget position in the future so we do not impose this horrible burden on future generations in our country. If we do that, Mr. Speaker, we are doing a disservice to our kids, to our grandkids and to our country. I implore the gentleman to pass this motion tonight and to sit down with me and find ways we can eliminate the waste, fraud and abuse he has talked about here tonight. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is really a straightforward motion to instruct the tax conferees. The motion calls on Congress to extend middle-class tax relief without increasing the Federal budget deficit. There is broad, bipartisan support in Congress for extending the middle-class tax relief that expires at the end of this year, and the House will soon have a chance to vote on extension of the relief. But, Mr. Speaker, there is also bipartisan support for the reinstatement of PAYGO rules that expired nearly 2 years ago. Extending PAYGO rules would have the effect of getting our fiscal house back in order and forcing the Federal Government to live within its means, to live within a budget. Today, the House has an opportunity to put itself on record in support of a conference report that extends necessary tax relief in a fiscally responsible manner. I have strongly supported middle-class tax relief in the past and will continue to support it in the future, Mr. Speaker. I support extending marriage penalty relief. I support the increased $1,000 per child tax credit. I support the expanded 10 percent tax bracket, and I also support alternative minimum tax, or AMT, tax relief. But what I find troubling is passing these tax cuts with borrowed money and leaving our children and grandchildren to pay our bills, putting a $7- plus to $10 trillion mortgage on our children's future. That is absolutely unacceptable. Applying PAYGO rules to both mandatory spending increases and tax cuts does not, I repeat does not, prevent Congress from passing more tax cuts. It simply means, if we are going to reduce our revenues by tax cuts, we need to reduce our spending by the same amount. This should not be about Republicans and Democrats. This should be about the future of our country and the future of our children and grandchildren. A bipartisan group of Senators has put forth a proposal to expand the middle-class tax cuts for 1 year, offset by an extension of customs users fees and closing tax loopholes. The Blue Dog coalition has offered a similar measure in the House that makes sense now and in the future. As of 9 a.m. this morning, Mr. Speaker, the national debt for our country stood at $7.35 trillion, trillion with a ``T''. That raises the share of debt for every citizen in this country to $25,000. The Treasury Department estimates that the national debt will exceed the statutory debt limit later this month or sometime next month. Over the last year alone, Mr. Speaker, our national debt has increased by $670 billion, and over the last 3 years it has increased by $1.5 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the national debt, our national debt, will exceed $10 trillion in just a little more than 4 years under our current budget policies, $10 trillion. Just a few hours ago, by an overwhelming vote of 404 to 8, the House passed the Stenholm amendment to the Transportation, Treasury appropriations bill which would prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from raiding government retirement funds to avoid breaching the debt limit. I hope that Congress will keep the Stenholm amendment in the Transportation, Treasury conference report and force the Federal Government to take responsibility for its fiscal policies. As the House moves to consider an extension of tax relief, we should keep in mind that the one tax that will never go away, Mr. Speaker, is the debt tax. The debt tax is the interest we pay on our national debt, almost $1 billion a day. That is $1 billion a day. Last year, the debt tax accounted for 18 percent of all government revenues, and the interest that we pay on our national debt will only grow if we continue our present fiscal policies. We should not pay for tax cuts by borrowing money against our children's future, in effect putting a mortgage on the future of our children and grandchildren. We are taking the tax cuts now and asking for our kids and grandkids to pay for those tax cuts later, with interest, billions and trillions of dollars of interest. Congress should be required to sit down and figure out how to make things fit within a budget, just like families across our country do every day. Almost every weekend, Mr. Speaker, I go back to Kansas and I hear from Kansas families, Why can the people in Congress not live like American families do? They follow three simple rules: Number 1, do not spend more money than you make; number 2, pay off your debts, common sense, Mr. Speaker; and number 3, take care of basics and the future. The basics for a family are food, shelter, education, health care, transportation, things we all write checks for every month. The basics for our Nation are national defense, the Social Security system, a retirement system for people who have worked hard all their lives and cannot work anymore and, just an example, some sort of national highway system to move goods around this country and keep this economy going. Yet, for years, Congress has lived beyond its means by spending more money than it took in in revenues, and we need to change that course again. We need to start living like American families do and not placing a $10-plus trillion mortgage on the future of our children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I hope and I ask all the Members of this House of Representatives to, again, put aside partisan politics, because it is not about Democrats and Republicans, and to vote for this motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII, I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 1308, the Tax Relief, Simplification, and Equity Act of 2003. The form of the motion is as follows: I move that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 1308 be instructed to agree, to the maximum extent possible within the scope of conference, to a conference report that: Number 1, extends the tax relief provisions which expire at the end of 2004; and Number 2, does not increase the budget deficit.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, August 1, 2004 a devastating fire engulfed the Ycua Bolanos supermarket in Asuncion, Paraguay, resulting in 399 deaths and many more injuries. In light of the long-standing relationship between the State of Kansas and Paraguay, on behalf of the citizens of Kansas' Third Congressional District, and on behalf of all Kansans, I wish to express our deep condolences to the citizens of Paraguay after this time of national tragedy. The Kansas Paraguay Partnership was started 36 years ago as part of the international Partners of the Americas, headquartered in Washington, D.C., in which states in the United States are paired with countries or regions in Latin America and the Caribbean. The cross cultural pairing between Paraguay and Kansas is one of 60 partnerships throughout the Americas whose linkages provide assistance when help is needed. The relief effort in the aftermath of the fire was directed and carried out by volunteers from Partners of the Americas' Paraguayan chapter with assistance from its counterpart chapter here in Kansas. All firemen in Paraguay are volunteers and depend to a great extent on donated equipment. Efforts are currently underway in both Paraguay and Kansas to replace the fire equipment which was lost in fighting the fire. Partners of the Americas is today one of the largest private sector networks of volunteers in the Western Hemisphere. It mobilizes citizens to serve as a grassroots, people-to-people catalyst for change. Volunteer initiatives have resulted in a rich array of programs, such as the Kansas-Paraguay efforts to strengthen citizen participation and improve farming operations, as well as increasing understanding through cultural and educational exchanges. This unique, twofold approach has turned thousands of ideas into creative action across borders. Mr. Speaker, I know that all members of this House join with me in sharing our support with the people of Paraguay during this difficult time.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, the week of September 17-23 has been officially designated as Constitution Week. This marks the 217th 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 defence, 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 are fighting overseas to defend our liberties here at home.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we talk so much in this institution about values; and, specifically, we talk about family values. Fiscal responsibility is a family value. It is a family value we should teach our children; it is a family value we should practice ourselves here in Congress as we do in our homes around the country. When we stand up here, and I am here in support of the gentleman from Indiana's motion to instruct on H.R. 1308, what this would do is extend tax cuts, extend tax cuts, not raise taxes; so the debate tonight is partially mischaracterizing what this is all about. All we are saying, Mr. Speaker, is that when we extend these tax cuts, we want to employ what Chairman Greenspan recommended the House reinstitute and that is budget rules that say pay for these, find some way to offset these or pay for these tax cuts. That is all we want to do. We want to extend tax cuts, not raise taxes; but we want to do it in a fiscally responsible manner. As my colleagues know, we have a $7.3 trillion debt, the highest in our Nation's history; we have a $422 billion deficit, the highest in our Nation's history. We are paying almost $1 billion a day in what I call the debt tax, which is the interest on our national debt. It is money that could be used for more tax cuts if we were not paying interest on this huge national debt. We have got to get back to fiscal responsibility. We have to get back to fiscal sanity. We have to start living like American families do, within a budget. And this should not be about Democrats and Republicans. This should not be partisan. This should be about the future of our country and not placing a huge unsustainable, unpayable mortgage on the future of our children and grandchildren.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note the passing of Richard A. Bloch, of Kansas City, Missouri, who was a co-founder of H&R Block, Inc., and a passionate crusader for cancer patients. In 1955, Richard Bloch and his brother, Henry, relaunched a small family-owned bookkeeping service as H&R Block, focusing on income tax preparation. Richard Bloch was a primary force behind the company's rapid expansion in the two decades thereafter. Diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and told he had 3 months to live in the late 1970s, he was declared cured after 2 years of aggressive therapy. After that, Richard Bloch dedicated the rest of his life to helping others fight cancer. He and his wife, Annette, founded the R.A. Bloch Cancer Management Center and the R.A. Bloch Cancer Support Center at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, which became models for more than 100 similar organizations nationwide. As he once said, ``Our sole goal is to try to get people to fight. If they fight, they have a chance to win.'' Another of his signature achievements was creating the Physicians Data Query, a computer program now used by the National Cancer Institute that provides treatment for all forms of cancer. To honor Bloch, the Federal Government named the Bethesda, Maryland, building that is housing the program as the R.A. Bloch International Cancer Information Center. Born on February 15, 1926, in Kansas City, Missouri, he is survived by Annette, his wife of 58 years, their four children, and fourteen grandchildren. Earlier, I had introduced House Resolution 376, which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to the Bloch Cancer Foundation; its text aptly summarizes the many public contributions made by Richard Bloch, and I include it here: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to the Bloch Cancer Foundation. Whereas Richard and Annette Bloch are founders of the Bloch Cancer Foundation, established in 1980; Whereas Richard and Annette have gifted to the University of Missouri-Kansas City the Bloch Support Center, a center which reaches out to cancer-stricken patients, their supporters, and caregivers, through education, counseling, and research designed to achieve the highest quality of life while living with cancer, and, in addition, offers professional education opportunities for students to receive training and research skills that deal with the psychological aspects of cancer; Whereas Richard Bloch, along with the National Cancer Institute, implemented a computer program called PDQ (`Physicians Data Query') that gathers information from every cancer center in the United States and 22 foreign countries and gives the state of the art treatment for every type and stage of cancer in addition to all available experimental therapies; Whereas Richard and Annette Bloch authored three books: `Cancer . . . There's Hope' about Richard's battle with his `terminal' lung cancer; `Fighting Cancer', a step-by-step guide showing cancer patients how to fight the disease; and `Guide for Cancer Supporters', geared exclusively to supporters of cancer patients; Whereas Cancer Survivor Parks have been established to help cancer survivors, to be a tribute to these survivors, and to be a celebration of life in Kansas City, Missouri; Houston, Texas; Dallas, Texas; Cleveland, Ohio; Columbus, Ohio; Indianapolis, Indiana; Rancho Mirage, California; New Orleans, Louisiana; Santa Rosa, California; Jacksonville, Florida; Bakersfield, California; Phoenix, Arizona; Baltimore, Maryland; Chicago, Illinois and Omaha, Nebraska; Whereas Dick and Annette's foundation has gathered a wide variety of volunteers including doctors sharing their time, computer specialists creating informative and helpful web sites, home volunteers making calls to offer guidance and hope to new patients, and in-house volunteers answering phone calls, e-mails, and being there when called upon; Whereas Richard and Annette Bloch in 1980 founded the Bloch Cancer Hot Line, an organization composed of more than 500 cancer survivors that has fielded over 125,000 calls in the last 20 years, which on June 4, 2003, celebrated its 23rd anniversary of giving hope, support, and information to those who call; Whereas June 4, 2003, also marked the 18th anniversary of the first Cancer Survivor Day Rally, held originally in Kansas City, Missouri, and now held in over 700 communities throughout the United States; and Whereas the Cancer Survivor Day Rally glorifies the attitude that cancer and death are not synonymous and that a cancer diagnosis does not represent a decrease in the quality of life: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives commends Richard and Annette Bloch and the Bloch Cancer Foundation and their network of invaluable volunteers on behalf of 8,400,000 Americans living with cancer. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article surveying Richard Bloch's life and accomplishments that appeared in today's Kansas City Star: A Success in Business--and at Helping Others (By Gene Meyer) Richard Bloch, a passionate crusader for cancer patients and co-founder of the world's largest tax preparation company, H&R Block Inc., died of heart failure Wednesday morning at his home. He was 78. Bloch and his brother, Henry, relaunched a small family bookkeeping service in 1955 as H&R Block, specializing in what then was the newly emerging field of income tax preparation. Although Henry Bloch may be more widely associated with the company because of the advertising campaigns in which he appeared, Richard Bloch is credited as a driving force in the company's rapid expansion in the 1960s and later. ``Dick was a true entrepreneur, and his energy and talents helped create the path that makes H&R Block the professional and accessible company it is today,'' said Mark Ernst, the company's current chairman and chief executive. ``His personal integrity and commitment to helping people remain an important part of our company's culture,'' Ernst said. In addition to his business accomplishments, Richard Bloch in his later years touched tens of thousands more lives through his courageous personal battles with cancer, and his tireless advocacy for cancer patients. Bloch was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer in 1978, and was told he had three months to live. But he fought the disease and was declared cured after two years of aggressive therapy. He was diagnosed in 1989 with colon cancer, which he also fought aggressively and survived. Bloch always attributed his successful fight to the support of his family, finding the right skilled medical help and keeping a positive attitude. ``Our sole goal is to try to get people to fight,'' he said in a story last year commemorating his 25 years of helping other cancer survivors. ``If they fight, they have a chance to win.'' Bloch returned briefly to Block as chairman after fighting his lung cancer, but sold his interest in the enterprise in 1982 to become a full-time crusader for cancer patients everywhere. Henry Bloch could not be reached for comment Wednesday. A spokesman said he was occupied with funeral arrangements. Richard Bloch and his wife, Annette, who survives him, founded one of the first cancer hot lines in the U.S. in 1980, which has since logged more than 125,000 calls from newly diagnosed cancer patients. The Blochs also founded the R.A. Bloch Cancer Foundation Inc., plus the R.A. Bloch Cancer Management Center and the R.A. Bloch Cancer Support Center at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. The centers have become models for a national network of more than 100 similar organizations across the United States that provide medical, moral and other support for cancer patients and their families. ``He was always one of our best volunteers,'' said Vangie Rich, administrator of the cancer support center. ``He never hesitated to share his home phone number with anyone who wanted to talk about cancer,'' Rich said. Bloch also conceived the Physician Data Query, a computer program at the National Cancer Institute that provides the latest treatment options for all types of cancers. He started an annual Fighting Cancer Rally now held in several U.S. cities on the second Sunday of each June. He financed the Richard and Annette Bloch Cancer Survivors' Park in Kansas City. And he wrote several books supporting cancer education, awareness and support for survivors. He served on the advisory board of the National Cancer Institute and was a member of the Institute of Medicine and the President's Circle of the National Academy of Sciences. Late in life, he pushed for laws making second opinions mandatory for patients diagnosed with cancer. ``He definitely will be missed,'' said Anne Mueller of Mission, whose husband, David, has survived four kinds of cancer since 1978 and has worked with Bloch as a hot line volunteer. ``He's been an inspiration to David and many others,'' Anne Mueller said. ``Now we look at it as cancer with a small c, not cancer with a big C.'' Bloch was born Feb. 15, 1926, in Kansas City. He attended Bryant Elementary School, Southwest High School and the Wharton School of Finance at the University of Pennsylvania. Funeral services are scheduled for 10:30 a.m. Friday at Louis Memorial Chapel, 6830 Troost Ave. The R.A. Bloch Cancer Foundation, at 4400 Main St. in Kansas City, can be reached online at www.blochcancer.or or by calling 1-(800) 433-0464.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to note the passing of Daniel J. Watkins, of Prairie Village, Kansas, who passed away peacefully at his home with his wife and children around him on Wednesday, July 21, 2004, the feast day of his patron, St. Daniel the Prophet. Dan Watkins was born on December 18, 1923, the second of four children of Thomas J. and Theresa A. Watkins, and raised on the family farm near Albia, Iowa. He enlisted in the Navy in 1943 and was commissioned and assigned to the 37th Spec. Construction Battalion (Sea Bees) in the Pacific Theatre, where he was Asst. Company Commander on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, near Pearl Harbor. Following his service in the Navy, Dan completed his studies at Iowa State University, where he earned a degree in civil engineering. He was a member of the Phi Kappa fraternity and the track team. He was also inducted into the Tau Beta Pi, the Knights of St. Patrick and the Iowa Engineering honorary societies. Dan married Barbara L. Van Cleve on September 9, 1946. They moved to Kansas City in 1947 when Dan accepted a position with the firm of Howard Needles Tammen and Bergendoff. His entire professional career was spent with HNTB, culminating as the chairman of the Executive Committee. He took great satisfaction in the many roads, bridges, airports and other projects that HNTB designed. In 1989, Dan was awarded the Marston Medal by his alma mater, Iowa State University for outstanding achievement in engineering. He was also the recipient of the Distinguished Service Award by the National Society of Professional Engineers and by the Missouri Society of Professional Engineers. Dan was also very active in civic and charitable organizations serving the metropolitan area. Dan was a member of the Civic Council of Greater Kansas City, serving as a Director from 1985 to 1988. He was also Chairman of the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce in 1982- 1983, after serving on the Board for several years. Dan served two terms as Chairman of Carondelet Health Corporation, after serving on the Board from its inception from 1983 until 1989. He was on the Board of Directors of St. Joseph Hospital for six years. Dan and Barb also spent many years fundraising for the St. Martin of Tours League, which sponsors the annual Snow Ball benefiting Catholic Charities for the Archdiocese of Kansas City, Kansas. Dan was President of the League in 1985. In 1987, Dan was selected as the Catholic honoree of the Greater Kansas City Chapter of the National Conference of Christians and Jews. Dan served on the Rockhurst College Board of Regents, the Board of Trustees for the Midwest Research Institute and the Board of Directors of UMB South. He also served as a Prairie Village City Councilman for six years. Above all else, Dan was a faithful servant of Christ, a loving husband, and devoted father. His greatest gift to us was his example, including his strong Catholic Faith and his devotion to the Rosary. Perhaps the greatest testament to Dan's trust in the Lord was his willingness, together with Barb, to welcome each of their fifteen children into the world and provide all of them with abundant love. Dan will be missed dearly by the family, and his passing is a loss for the entire community. Dan was preceded in death by his parents, Thomas J. and Theresa A. Watkins, and one infant son, Paul, in whose name Dan sponsored a church built in Africa. Dan is survived by his loving and devoted wife of 57 years, Barbara, who continues to reside at the family home, and by his children and their families: Daniel and Phyllis Watkins, Lawrence, KS; Robert and Julie Watkins, Dallas, TX; Alice and Jim Scherzberg, Olathe, KS; John and Melissa Watkins, Lawrence, KS; Marianne and Paul Horvath, Prairie Village, KS; Jeanne and Gene Schinstock, Hutchinson, KS; Thomas and K. Watkins, Prairie Village; James and Ruth Watkins, Australia; Barbara Sack Hodges and Gene Hodges, Merriam, KS; William and Connie Watkins, Leawood, KS; Molly and Dan DiCarlo, Covington, GA; Frances Hunt, Prairie Village; David and Theresa Watkins, and Patrick and Shannon Watkins, Overland Park, KS; and by his forty grandchildren and ten great-grandchildren, and by his sisters, Mary Mahoney and Charlene Coady, and his brother, Robert Watkins, of Iowa. The Watkins family would like to acknowledge the kind, compassionate care of the Sisters, Servants of Mary at the end of Dan's life. I join with all of them, and with Dan and Barb's many friends and neighbors, in mourning the passing of this remarkable man, who gave so much to so many during his rich, full life.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3313, which would bar federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from hearing cases related to provisions in the Defense of Marriage Act [P.L. 104- 199]. Under that law, the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman extends to all aspects of federal law and prevents states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. In addition to P.L. 104-199, 38 states--including Kansas--have adopted laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman. H.R. 3313 would not bar state courts from hearing cases related to same sex marriage. While Congress has broad authority under Article III of our Constitution to regulate the jurisdiction, procedures and remedies available in state and federal courts, this power is generally not used as a means to affect substantive law. Over the years, various proposals have been made--but not enacted--to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts to hear cases regarding particular, controversial areas of constitutional law, such as school busing, abortion, prayer in school, and recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Congress' Article III authority is generally used to address broad issues of court efficiency and resource allocation, rather than to allocate judicial power in a way that affects or influences the result in cases concerning specific constitutional issues. Limiting the jurisdiction of any court for any particular class of cases raises questions regarding both the separation of powers doctrine and the Equal Protection Clause of our Constitution. Additionally, it is not settled doctrine that Congress has the power to eliminate Supreme Court review of constitutional questions. As President Reagan's first attorney general, William French Smith, noted: ``The integrity of our system of federal law depends upon a single court of last resort having a final say on the resolution of federal questions. The ultimate result of depriving the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over a class of cases would be that federal law would vary in its impact among the inferior courts. State courts could reach disparate conclusions on identical questions of law and the Supreme Court would not be able to resolve the inevitable conflicts.'' For all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, enactment of H.R. 3313 would be unwise and quite possibly unconstitutional. I agree with the late Senator Barry Goldwater who opposed similar ``court stripping'' bills during his Senate service, stating that ``the frontal assault on the independence of the Federal courts is a dangerous blow to the foundations of a free society.'' I noted with great interest a letter I recently received from former U.S. Representative Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. In his correspondence to members of the House, dated July 19, 2004, former Congressman Barr urged the House to defeat H.R. 3313, stating that it will ``needlessly set a dangerous precedent for future Congresses that might want to protect unconstitutional legislation from judicial review. . . . The fundamental protections afforded by the Constitution would be rendered meaningless if others follow the path set by H.R. 3313.'' Former Congressman Barr also notes in his letter that, ``where I differ with the supporters of H.R. 3313 is in my confidence that the Supreme Court will not invalidate DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act]. During the lengthy consideration of DOMA, the House of Representatives heard detailed testimony on the constitutionality of DOMA. A parade of legal experts--including the Justice Department--determined that DOMA is fully constitutional. Although there are a few naysayers and wishful thinkers who opined that DOMA is unconstitutional, the overwhelming weight of authority was clear that DOMA is constitutional. Based on the exhaustive review of these opinions, Congress overwhelmingly passed DOMA and it was signed into law by President Clinton. DOMA remains good law. It is a sound and valid exercise of congressional authority, pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.'' Further, former Congressman Barr comments in his letter that ``because H.R. 3313 does not strip state courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges to the cross-state recognition section of DOMA, the result will be that each of the 50 state supreme courts will be the final authority on the constitutionality of a federal law. The chaotic result could be 50 different interpretations reached by state supreme courts, with no possibility of the U.S. Supreme Court reversing any incorrect interpretation of the federal DOMA. The potential for mischief by these courts is obvious. Ironically, I fear an increased likelihood of an adverse decision on DOMA's constitutionality if H.R. 3313 becomes law.'' Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, H.R. 3313 is neither good law nor good policy. My personal belief is that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, but that the regulation of marriage should be left to the states. Amending the Constitution of the United States is a serious matter not to be taken lightly and neither is enactment of legislation that would alter the careful balance of power and responsibility that the founders of our nation apportioned between the three branches of the federal government. I oppose H.R. 3313.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on July 12, 2004, my flight was delayed due to inclement weather causing me to miss rollcall vote Nos. 359 and 360, the Holt and Hefley amendments to the legislative branch appropriations bill, H.R. 4755. The Holt amendment would increase funding for the General Accounting Office (GAO) to establish a Center for Science and Technology Assessment within the GAO. The Hefley amendment would reduce all of the discretionary appropriations in the bill by 1 percent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Holt amendment and ``nay'' on the Hefley amendment. Please let the record reflect how I would have voted.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) for providing this forum tonight. We are here tonight to thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for his distinguished service to our country. Congressman Doug Bereuter is a gentleman whose congressional service is characterized by civility, integrity and gentlemanly conduct. I have never heard any Member of Congress, Republican or Democrat, say an unkind word about Doug Bereuter. That may be a rarity around here. Doug has honored this institution of Congress with his service. He has provided leadership as the President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, which I have had the honor to serve with Doug and work. He has worked to further the objectives of NATO and strengthen the ties between each of the Nations who are parties to NATO. Most importantly, perhaps Doug Bereuter is a good, decent man, and I am grateful he is my friend. Doug, may you have great success in your new career. My wife Stephanie and I wish you and Louise the very best. I again thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) for providing this forum this evening.

Mr. MOORE

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

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) for her work on H.R. 3890, a bill to reauthorize the steel and aluminum research and development program at the Department of Energy. This energy conservation program is part of the Industries of the Future program in DOE's Office of Industrial Technologies. It is carried out through cost-shared partnerships with industry. Past research under this program has made such steel mills and aluminum production facilities less polluting, more efficient and more productive. The budgets for such programs have been cut significantly during the past 3 years, Mr. Speaker. This sends the wrong message to American workers, who are relying on these industries to remain competitive in a global market. By reauthorizing the metals R&D program at H.R. 3890's authorization funding levels, we can give appropriate support for this research program. Restoring this funding will benefit the domestic steel and aluminum industries, the manufacturers who use American steel and aluminum in their products, and, ultimately, the American consumer. Mr. Speaker, I recommend support for the bill by my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOORE

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

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth), the newest Member of the House of Representatives.

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), who helped get an initial ``big wind earmark'' that brought $3.8 million to Texas Tech's Wind Disaster Research Program in 1998 and helped lay some of the foundation for the bill that is now going to come to the floor for a vote.

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for following through on his promise to mark up legislation on windstorms in the 108th Congress. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) for sponsoring with me this important legislation. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart) and the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), who have worked with me over the past three Congresses. And finally, staff member Jim Turner of the Committee on Science staff and Brian Pallasch of the American Society of Civil Engineers, and my staff person, Jana Denning, have worked tirelessly over the past 5 years on this legislation, and they all deserve thanks. Almost 6 years ago, my hometown of Wichita, Kansas, was hit by an F4 tornado which plowed through the suburb of Haysville, killing six, injuring 150, and causing over $140 million in damage. The devastation of this attack motivated me to try to do something. I put together a bill modeled after NEHRP, the successful earthquake research program begun over 30 years ago. My goal is to mitigate loss of life and damage to property due to wind and related hazards. We can do this through early warning of tornadoes, better emergency response, and better design and construction of buildings. I reviewed comments from the American Society of Civil Engineers, the National Association of Home Builders, the insurance industry, meteorologists, emergency managers, academia, industry, and the manufactured housing associations to try to fine-tune this legislation. On May 4, just last year, almost 4 years to the day after the deadly 1999 Kansas and Oklahoma tornadoes, tornadoes touched down again in metropolitan Kansas City and the surrounding suburbs, as well as in many of my congressional colleagues' districts, destroying property, killing people and injuring our constituents. These tornadoes, Mr. Speaker, did not check to find out if they were hitting a Republican or Democratic district. Tornadoes are truly an equal-opportunity destroyer. This is not a Republican bill. It is not a Democratic issue. It is a human issue, and it is a human tragedy. And we need to deal with this, and we are dealing with this. And I am grateful to my colleagues across the aisle for dealing with this on a bipartisan basis. These windstorms destroy lives. I have seen it in my own district, and I know that many of my colleagues have as well. I thank, again, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) for his work on this legislation with me. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Lieutenant Edward ``Ned'' Neustrom of Johnson County Med-Act, who died unexpectedly of cardiac arrest while on duty on Friday, June 18th. Lieutenant Neustrom was found by firefighters at the emergency response station located at 13801 Switzer in Overland Park, KS, where he was assigned. Neustrom was a respected paramedic and departmental mentor with more than 25 years experience with Johnson County's Med-Act Department. He began his career as an emergency medical technician in February 1978. In August 1980, he advanced to the paramedic level and was again promoted in 1984 to team leader and to the rank of lieutenant. Neustrom was involved in many aspects of the Med-Act Department, including the Disaster Response Team, the Special Operations Group, the Emergency Operations Team, and he also served as a field training officer. Most recently, he was an integral member of the team that created and launched a partnership between the city's fire department and the Johnson County Med-Act Department. Neustrom had been assigned as a paramedic to the Overland Park station since the partnership was formed in 2002. Neustrom and his wife of 23 years, Linda, are the parents of three daughters. A family man with many friends, who enjoyed fly-fishing and playing guitar in his free time, he was 49 years old. I join with the grieving members of Johnson County Med-Act and the Overland Park Fire Department in paying tribute to this dedicated public servant, whose services were conducted with full public safety honors. Mr. Speaker, I commend to all members of this House the life and legacy of Lieutenant Ned Neustrom, and ask that you join me in this tribute.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, as the House considers our fiscal year 2005 appropriations measure for the Department of the Interior, I rise to draw the House's attention to Haskell Indian Nations University, which is located in Lawrence, Kansas, within my congressional district. Funded through the Interior Department's Bureau of Indian Affairs, Haskell was authorized by Congress, in partial fulfillment of treaty and trust obligations, to provide higher education to federally recognized tribal members. Haskell seeks to achieve this goal through the provision of tuition-free education, culturally sensitive curricula, innovative services and a commitment to academic excellence. Haskell has a program participation agreement with the U.S. Department of Education for eligible students to receive Pell Grants and other federal aid, such as direct student loans. This land grant institution is an intertribal university serving approximately 1,000 students representing 160 tribes from 30 states. Unfortunately, however, federal support for Haskell has not kept pace with its obligations. Since 1993, Haskell's overall funding allocation has risen by only 27 percent, while the institution has made the transition from a junior college to a 4-year university, with its first baccalaureate degrees granted in 1997. This table depicts Haskell's funding history over the past 10 years:

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, as the author of H.R. 4222, I want to thank Chairman Davis and Ranking Member Waxman of the Government Reform Committee for expediting the floor consideration of this legislation. In introducing H.R. 4222, I was joined by Representatives Todd Tiahrt, Jim Ryun and Jerry Moran. This legislation would designate the United States Postal Service facility located at 550 Nebraska Avenue in Kansas City, Kansas, as the ``Newell George Post Office Building.'' Newell Adolphus George served as a member of the 86th Congress, from 1959-61, representing the Second District of Kansas, which was redesignated as the Third District following the post-1960 congressional reapportionment. He was a member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. Born in Kansas City, Missouri, in 1904, he attended Hawthorne Grade School and Wyandotte High School in Kansas City, Kansas, as well as Wentworth Military Academy in Lexington, Missouri, and Park College in Parkville, Missouri. After studying law at the University of Kansas City School of Law, Newell George obtained employment as a Capitol Hill elevator operator through the patronage of Senator George Mcgill of Kansas and graduated from the George Washington University Law School. He then was an attorney for the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in Washington, D.C., from 1935-1937, a regional counsel for the War Manpower Commission from 1942-43, and a regional attorney for the Bureau of Employment Security and the Federal Security Agency from 1937-52. After the Democratic Party lost control of the Executive Branch, George served as first assistant Wyandotte County Attorney from 1953-58. At that point, he began running for Congress, losing to incumbent Republican Errett Scrivner in 1954 and 1956. In 1958, however, a strong anti-Republican tide ran through the farm and western states, resulting in the defeat of numerous incumbent Senators and Representatives, including the defeat of Representative Scrivner by Newell George. With Republican dominance returned to Kansas in 1960, Representative George was defeated for re-election by Robert Ellsworth of Lawrence, making Newell George the most recent resident of Kansas City to represent Kansas in the U.S. Congress. After his defeat, however, George was the first U.S. Attorney nominated for appointment by the new Kennedy-Johnson Administration. Newell George served as U.S. Attorney for Kansas from 1961-68. After losing another congressional race in 1968 to Representative Larry Winn, Jr., George practiced law privately in Kansas City, Kansas, and died in 1992. Married to the former Jean Hannan of Kansas City, Kansas, Newell George was an intrepid public servant and active, concerned citizen. In addition to his political activities, he was a member of Abdallah Shrine, Scottish Rite; a master of the West Gate Masonic Lodge; president of the Kansas City, Kansas, Hi-12 Club; a member of the Kansas State Hi-12 Association; a member of the Breakfast Optimist Club; a member of the Wyandotte County, Kansas and American Bar Associations, the American Judicature Society, Delta Theta Phi law fraternity, the American Academy of Political And Social Science, the Kansas City, Kansas Chamber of Commerce, the Terrace Club, the Top o' the Morning Club, and the First Presbyterian Church of Kansas City, Kansas. Newell George's other public service included membership on the Kansas Public Disclosure Commission; the Civil Service Commission of Kansas City, Kansas; the Kansas State Government Ethics Commission; and service as a director of the Kansas Multiple Sclerosis Society. Nicknamed ``Punk'' by his friends, George's other activities included managing a string of boxers, after boxing himself at Wentworth Military Academy; bowling; and adding to a collection of old books--mainly Bibles and McGuffey readers--begun by his father. In short, Mr. Speaker, Newell A. George was the kind of community oriented, politically active individual who made things happen on the state and local level in so many American cities during the middle third of the twentieth century. With regard to Kansas and Kansas City, he was one of a small but hardy group of Democratic activists who kept two-party government alive in one of our country's most Republican states. It is fitting, therefore, that the House today approves legislation introduced by the bipartisan Kansas House delegation that will designate Kansas City, Kansas', civil center post office in memory of U.S. Representative Newell George.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, our nation recently celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision, Brown v. Board of Education, which struck down the ``separate but equal'' doctrine, holding that segregated public schools violated the equal protection provisions of our Constitution. As we honor the many intrepid Americans who fought for racial equality for many years in order to make the Brown decision a reality, I want to bring to your attention the important contribution to this effort made by McKinley Langford Burnett of Topeka, Kansas. The Brown decision was the fulfillment of a long fight over several years to assure equal education for children. McKinley Burnett began the Topeka, Kansas-based arm of this campaign in earnest in 1948, when he became president of the Topeka chapter of the National Association of Colored People [NAACP]. While earlier attempts had been made to challenge segregation in Topeka, by 1948 only Topeka High School was integrated, and that school had separate sports teams for white and black students. As an observer of the situation said of Burnett after the fact: ``He faced a school board and superintendent who believed that schools should remain segregated, black teachers afraid of losing their jobs, and many who just didn't want to rock the boat. They all faced McKinley Burnett, a man whose drive and determination kept him working for the day when schools would be open to all.'' Born in Oskaloosa, Kansas, in 1897, McKinley Burnett faced discrimination throughout his early life: offered only parts as dancers or butlers in school plays; relegated to working as a supply clerk at the Veterans Administration; and turned down for a job as a route driver with a local bakery because of his race. In 1948, however, he became president of the Topeka chapter of the NAACP, in a community where separate schools for the races had been established in 1927. For 2 years, Burnett held meetings and wrote letters seeking support for school desegregation, without success. According to Charles Baston, a member of the Topeka NAACP chapter, the school board would often extend its meetings by sitting and joking, hoping the NAACP members at the meeting would leave without speaking: ``We never left.'' In 1950, the NAACP, under Burnett's leadership, recruited 13 black families to challenge segregation by sending their children to enroll in white-only schools. The 20 children, including 7-year-old Linda Brown of Topeka, were denied enrollment, and in February 1951 the NAACP filed suit. Three years later, the Supreme Court issued their landmark decision, in a case that also included suits from South Carolina, Delaware, Virginia and the District of Columbia. Burnett continued to serve as president of the Topeka NAACP chapter until 1963, dying in 1968. As Roy Wilkins of the NAACP said upon his death, in a telegram to Burnett's widow, Lea: ``Throughout the years he was in the vanguard of our fight for full citizenship rights. For more than a quarter century he served as President of the Topeka branch of the NAACP. During that period against seemingly insurmountable odds he was instrumental in initiating the school desegregation case of Linda Brown in Topeka which culminated in the historic Brown vs. Board of Education decision. He could have no better monument than this decision which changed the course of public education in our country.'' Mr. Speaker, proclamations honoring the life of McKinley Langford Burnett were issued by the Topeka Board of Education, the Shawnee County, Kansas, Board of Commissioners, and the Governor of the State of Kansas. I include them in the Record, along with an Associated Press article summarizing Mr. Burnett's life and good works, and an editorial from the Topeka Capital Journal commending his life. Resolution 01-06 Whereas, McKinley Langford Burnett was a behind-the-scenes force in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka case that dismantled the ``separate but equal'' provisions for the education of African American students in America's public schools; and Whereas, Mr. Burnett was the Topeka chapter president of the NAACP from 1948-1963, concentrating his efforts on the integration of Topeka Public Schools and with determination, conviction and persistence challenged the Board of Education to end segregated schools; and Whereas, Mr. Burnett was responsible for recruiting a group of 13 black families to challenge segregation by sending their children to enroll in all-white schools in the fall of 1950 and upon the denial of their enrollment, Mr. Burnett, along with other NAACP officials and attorneys, developed a strategy for a court case and filed suit against the School Board through the local NAACP chapter, on behalf of the families; and Whereas, three years later the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the case, which had been joined with four other school desegregation lawsuits from South Carolina, Delaware, Virginia and the District of Columbia, and on May 17, 1954 issued their landmark ruling that said ``separate educational facilities are inherently unequal'' and that the separate but equal doctrine had ``no place'' in public education; and Whereas, 40 years later, the Topeka Public Schools' Board of Education entered into a school desegregation remedy plan in the re-opened Brown case, successfully implemented the remedy plan, and four years later, July 27, 1999, District Court Judge Richard Rogers approved the district's motion for unitary status and directed the case be closed; and Whereas, a committee appointed by the Superintendent of Schools pursuant to Board Policy 2200 has recommended that the unnamed Administrative Center of the Topeka Public Schools be named in honor of Mr. Burnett. Now therefore, in recognition that Mr. Burnett's vision and passion for educational justice for all children resulted in Brown vs. The Board of Education, and has been felt in Topeka and across the land, Be it resolved, on this 7th day of June, 2001 that the Topeka Public Schools' Board of Education, to commemorate the progress of educational equity initiated by Mr. Burnett in the 1940's, immortalized by the 1954 Supreme Court, and sustained in recent years by the courts and Topeka Public Schools' Board of Education; and to honor this unsung hero for his untiring efforts until his death in 1968, does hereby name the Topeka Public Schools' Administrative Center, the: ``McKinley L. Burnett Administrative Center.''