Dennis Moore

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, the week of September 17-23 has been officially designated as Constitution Week under Public Law 105-225. This marks the 215th 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 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 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 express my great concern with provisions of H.R. 5203. Supporters of this legislation will tell you it shows their support for the education of our children. I believe that if Congress is serious about supporting elementary and secondary education, we should fully fund the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act passed overwhelmingly last year. The President's budget not only fails to provide all the funding authorized for this legislation, it actually cuts funding for these programs by $90 million from the 2002 enacted level, to $22.1 billion for 2003. This is $4.2 billion below the $26.3 billion authorized for 2002. Mr. Speaker, every member of the House has heard from their local school districts how the unfunded mandate of the special education law leaves them struggling to balance the books. I voted for the No Child Left Behind Act and I made a commitment to my local school districts that I would do everything in my power to ensure that this new law is fully funded. Unfortunately, the bill before us today will divert funds from the commitments we made when passing the No Child Left Behind Act in favor of initiatives for which there is no strong consensus. For example, the Coverdell Savings Account provisions of this bill could divert scarce resources from our public school system, a system that serves over 90% of our nation's kids. These Education Savings Accounts (ESA) provide tax breaks, equivalent to vouchers, for private schools. ESA's drain funds from the treasury that could be used for other purposes-- including full funding of the No Child Left Behind Act. Further, ESAs offer no real choice to low-income families, who do not have the funds to put aside for private school, or families with disabled kids, who can still be turned down by private schools. Mr. Speaker, while I am concerned with the affect certain provisions of this bill will have on scarce public school funds, I do support several provisions in this bill. I have long supported efforts to expand the student loan interest deduction. This policy affirms my belief in the importance of higher education to our nation's future and my hope that the opportunities of college can be made more affordable to more individuals. I also support legislation that would help local communities with school construction and renovation needs. The average age of school buildings in my congressional district is 30 years, and 25% of my schools use portable classrooms. The need is great in both areas, and during my time in office I have actively worked to address these problems. It is regrettable that I was unable to support this bill due to the unfortunate legislative vehicle chosen and that it was brought to the floor by the majority in their zeal to vote yet again for school vouchers. Finally, I am opposing this bill because it was brought to the floor under an unfair procedure that prevents the consideration of any amendments and even a motion to recommit. Perhaps if the majority had utilized the regular order of the committee process, members like me would have had an opportunity to have our concerns addressed and this legislation, stripped of its controversial elements, could have passed the House overwhelmingly.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report for H.R. 3009, Trade Act of 2002, which provides for Trade Promotion Authority for the President, among other things. Globalization is here to stay. With markets now linked globally by computers, satellite communications, and advanced transportation networks, international trade and investment will play an increasing role in American prosperity. We cannot, as a nation, afford to retreat from a proactive strategy of trade expansion that takes advantage of our position as the world's most prosperous and dynamic economy. Trade liberalization is also an important tool towards developing responsible global relations. It is a tool, as the preamble of the GATT states, for ``raising standards of living, ensuring full employment, developing the full use of the resources of the world and expanding the production and exchange of goods.'' Indeed, open markets are an important engine of economic growth, which can expand opportunities, raise living standards, and affect social change. Perhaps most importantly, however, trade liberalization provides our nation with an additional diplomatic tool and a forum within which our nation may deal with international disputes and/or coalition building. Trade's national security component cannot be understated. Mr. Speaker, on December 6, 2001, I voted for TPA because I believe trade expansion is necessary to achieve continued economic growth and protect our vital national security interests. House approval of this legislation in December helped move the process forward on this legislation and made possible a stronger bill from the Senate and a conference report that contained many of the important provisions of the Senate bill. The TPA conference report contained strong trade adjustment assistance (TAA) provisions that improved and expanded the current program. Indeed, the conference report nearly tripled the existing TAA program and set important new precedents regarding coverage for displaced workers and health care assistance for the unemployed. This bill will, for the first time, allow displaced workers to receive assistance in purchasing qualified group health plans and makes them eligible for a benefit to pay 65 percent of their health care costs. This bill also expands the universe of individuals eligible for assistance to include secondary workers and farmers. Finally, the bill doubles the amount to be used to retrain displaced workers in new and better paying jobs, while creating wage insurance for older employees. With specific regard to trade, the conference report improves upon the House-passed version by requiring, for the first time, that labor and environment issues are ``on par'' with, or given the same consideration as, other trade-related issues. These labor and environment issues are fully enforceable through dispute resolution mechanisms under current law and the bill contains provisions to ensure that our U.S. trade laws are protected. The conference report also fully addresses investor-state disputes, or so-called Chapter 11 issues not contained in the original House- passed bill. The legislation will (1) ensure that foreign investors in the U.S. are not accorded greater rights than U.S. investors; (2) establish standards for ``fair and equitable treatment'' consistent with U.S. legal principles and practice; (3) set up mechanisms to deter and eliminate frivolous claims; (4) provide for public input into the formulation of government positions in investor-state dispute settlements; and (5) create an appellate body to review these disputes. Finally, this agreement will make the process of foreign trade agreements more efficient and diplomatic. Although the President will form our nation's official policy on trade, Congress will have considerable influence over the development of that party through the creation of a new Congressional Oversight Committee. Ultimately, Congress will also have the authority to check the Administration's power by accepting or rejecting the policy. TPA is critical for removing remaining trade barriers to exports of Kansas' good and services. Kansas exporters still face major trade barriers in sectors like civil aircraft and parts, agricultural equipment, industrial machinery and auto parts. With the United States on the sidelines, foreign competitors are forging ahead and pursuing their own market-opening agreements. Kansas' economy is export- dependent, with export sales of $1,879 for every state resident. More than 68,000 Kansas jobs depend on exports of manufactured goods. I believe that this agreement strikes a good balance to protect these export-dependent jobs, preserve our values with regard to labor and the environment, protect our trade laws, and provide unprecedented assistance for displaced workers to receive new, and better jobs.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an important cultural organization that has played a vital role in my congressional district for the past 50 years. Radio station KANU-FM began broadcasting on September 15, 1952, in Lawrence, Kansas, when Harry Truman was serving as President. During the coming weekend, they are celebrating their 50th anniversary on the air. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their service. Since 1952, KANU has informed, enlightened, educated and amused the radio listeners of northeast Kansas; it is the flagship station of National Public Radio in our state and it is a cultural lifeline for Kansans and an example of public radio at its best. At a time when radio programming is becoming more homogeneous, KANU continues to present classical music, jazz, opera, bluegrass and folk music. These genres have a wide audience, but listeners might not be able to hear them on the radio without the steadfast, continued support of KANU. KANU is also a credit to its home institution, the University of Kansas, which has backed the institution from its beginning. As a listener, supporter and occasional guest of KANU, I urge all Kansans, and indeed, all fans of good radio, to thank KANU for their 50 years of broadcasting and to wish them well for the next 50 years.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on April 22, 2002, I introduced legislation in celebration of Earth Day that would create a 2,800-acre park in Johnson County on the former site of the Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant. Senator Pat Roberts has truly been a leader on this issue by inserting the language from our bills (S. 2107/H.R. 4544) into the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. As the House and Senate go to conference to mitigate the differences between our two bills, I would like to strongly encourage the conferees to keep this important language in the final authorization bill. I have been working on this issue since I was sworn into office in January 1999. Johnson County has experienced rapid growth in recent years making it even more important that we set aside areas for parks and nature preserves now, before they are developed. The transfer would expand the borders of the 850-acre Kill Creek Park in Olathe, which opened last year. The greatest gift we can give to future generations is acres and acres of local parks and nature trails. I have four grandchildren; I would love nothing more than to be able to take them to play in the parks like the one this authorization language would create. By transferring this land from the federal government to local control, we'll continue to add to our local system of parks and recreation areas.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, in October, I co-sponsored H.R. 3026, the Office of Homeland Security Act of 2001, to establish an Office of Homeland Security within the Executive Office of the President. Eight months later, President George W. Bush gave impetus to the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, and Congress has been given a week to give it our stamp of approval. The primary issue for Congress and the President is what the program composition and administrative organization of the new department should be, unfortunately with only a few weeks, we had to craft the best legislation possible. As proposed, the administration bill would permit the Secretary of Homeland Security to choose how or whether their employees would be covered by current legal protections against reprisal when they call attention to instances of agency misfeasance. The bill also would exempt from the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) any information about infrastructure vulnerabilities given to the Homeland Security Department by any private or nonfederal entity. In congressional hearings, members of both parties have made it clear that the administration is overreaching, especially with regard to whistle-blowers and exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act. The need for whistle-blowers and for their protection was evidenced by the recent cases of Special Agent Coleen Rowley and of two Immigration and Naturalization Service agents disciplined for revealing how thin security is along the U.S.-Canadian border. These examples argue for extending whistle-blower protection to the FBI, not withdrawing it from the INS, which could be part of the Homeland Security Department. In June, I sponsored H. Res. 436, commending Special Agent Coleen Rowley for outstanding performance of her duties. As a former district attorney, I know any law enforcement organization is only as good as its people and their ability to gather and analyze information. FBI agent Rowley courageously came forward to reveal critical breakdowns in the FBI's information gathering processes before September 11. She did this without any regard for her own career or prospects for advancement. Agent Rowley personifies the American tradition of demonstrating integrity and selflessness in the service of our nation. Experts have been saying for years that the U.S. needed a Department of Homeland Security. A Department of Homeland Security is essential to coordinating the U.S. war on terrorism. Arguably our tactical and strategic missions and goals have been forever changed since the events of September 11th. H.R. 5005 is a bipartisan piece of legislation with input from all House standing committees with jurisdiction. H.R. 5005 also shows what Congress can actually achieve when given a deadline and an issue above the fray of partisan politics. Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose H.R. 5005, legislation to create a cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. This experience reminds me of the efforts of President Clinton to overhaul our nation's healthcare system. As with that plan, President Bush's homeland security proposal, while well intended, goes too far, too fast in creating a massive new Federal agency that may well add to the current problems in the system--not solve them. Creating a new federal agency and 170,000 employees with a budget of $38 billion is not something that the Congress should rush into without proper planning or without understanding the ramifications of this action. In announcing his plans to create a Department of Homeland Security just a few weeks ago, the President said that the new agency could be created at no cost to the taxpayers. The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that it will cost about $3 billion to create and implement this new department. Mr. Chairman, I urge the President to withdraw his plan and attempt to address the issue of homeland security in a thoughtful and deliberative manner, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, two years ago, I voted against a so-called ``partial birth abortion'' ban because I believed it to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's 2000 decision in Stenberg v. Carhart proved me to be correct. Despite this ruling, the bill before us today corrects none of the flaws that were clearly outlined by the Court. Today's vote is a purely political exercise. H.R. 4965 does not include an exception to protect the health of the woman, despite clear instructions from the Court, in more than one decision since 1972, that any law restricting abortion must include such an exception. This bill, despite cosmetic changes to the language, is still unconstitutional. I believe in a woman's right make important decisions regarding her body and health. I also believe that the state can and should regulate abortion after the point of fetal viability. These two principles were codified in the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Mr. Speaker, if Congress truly wishes to ban abortion after the point of fetal viability, we should consider and pass H.R. 2702, the Late Term Abortion Restriction Act. This legislation, which I have cosponsored, would prohibit all late-term abortions, regardless of procedure, with exceptions only to protect the life of the mother and to avert serious adverse health consequences. The House was not allowed to vote on this bill today, which is a great shame, since it goes to the heart of this issue rather than using it as a campaign message. H.R. 2702 addresses what the American people truly want to stop: the termination of a viable fetus during late stages of a pregnancy. Today, I will vote against H.R. 4965. 1 urge my colleagues who truly wish to ban post-viability abortions to consider H.R. 2702 as a real solution to this personal and political issue.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant upon the occasion of her retirement. Sue Neustifter, the elected Register of Deeds of Douglas County, Kansas, which is located in the Third Congressional District, retired at the end of last month after holding that office since her first election in 1972, and after having worked for Douglas County for 43 years. Sue Neustifter was elected to the Douglas County Courthouse in 1972, as one of the group of Democratic candidates whose election in Douglas County in that year marked the real beginning of two-party politics in the home of Lawrence and the University of Kansas. She joined the Register of Deeds office on June 1, 1959, just a few days after graduating from Eudora High School. With the exception of one six month period when she left the office to campaign for the position of Register, Sue served in the office continuously until July 1st of this year. Elected thirty years ago, she was re-elected her last seven times on the ballot without any formal opposition. As an active member of the Kansas Register of Deeds Association, Sue has served as President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer of that group; she also has been a part of many Lawrence community organizations, such as Soroptimist International of Lawrence, Lawrence Business Women, the local legal secretaries' group, and the Lions' Club, where she was awarded ``Lion of the Year'' in 2001. She also received a 40-year award from the Kansas Association of Counties. Now that Sue has handed the keys of the Register's office over to Kay Pesnell, so that she can spend more time with her daughter, Sandra, son-in-law, Terry, and three grandchildren--Paige, Kalia and Tyler--it is fitting, Mr. Speaker, to include in today's Record a recent article from the Lawrence Journal-World that reviews the tenure and accomplishments of this dedicated and deservedly popular Kansas public servant. On behalf of the citizens of Douglas County, I wish her all the best upon her much deserved retirement and ask unanimous consent to reprint the article below. [From the Lawrence Journal-World, June 4, 2002] Register of Deeds Leaves Legacy of Growth, Efficiency (By Mark Fagan) Sue Neustifter is closing the book on a 43-year career at the hub of Douglas County's development industry. Make that the disk drive. ``We've gone from typewritten to photostat to microfilm to scanning now,'' said Neustifter, who has overseen the recording of thousands of land transfers as the country's register of deeds. ``It's easier now, but the work has tripled.'' Neustifter, in her ninth term as the country's elected register of deeds, said Monday that she would retire effective July 1. She will leave behind an office that generated an unprecedented $2.46 million in revenues last year for the county, bolstered by a record year for taxes on new and refinanced mortgages throughout the growing community. And the tally is poised to grow even stronger. Beginning the day Neustifter leaves office, mortgage- registration fees will go up by $2 per page, as mandated by the Kansas Legislature. The extra money will be used to upgrade technology in her office, which already has started transferring hundreds of rolls of microfilm onto dozens of compact discs for posterity. For an office that records pages at breakneck speed--1,000 pages last Friday alone--Neustifter's efficiency and proclivity will be missed, said Craig Weinaug, county administrator. The information kept in Neustifter's office forms the basis of virtually every land transfer in the county, and is relied upon by Realtors, title companies and property owners alike. Last year Neustifter and her seven employees faxed, photocopied and pulled enough documents--at $1, 50 cents and 25 cents a pop, respectively--for customers to add $20,930 to the county's budget. ``I've never heard one peep of complaint about anything out of your office,'' Commissioner Charles Jones said, after joining a standing ovation to applaud her work. ``And you're the cast cow.'' Neustifter joined the register of deeds office June 1, 1959, just days after graduating from Eudora High School. She started as a clerk, and worked her way up before quitting in 1972--for six months--only so that she could run for the top job. A Democrat, she won that race and every one since, including the last seven without any formal opposition. Neustifter intends to recommend that Kay Pesnell, who has worked for her for the past 12 years, be appointed by the county's Democratic Central Committee to serve out the remaining two years of Neustifter's term. Her 30 years in office marks one of the longest tenures of any elected official in Kansas--a testimony to her competence, work ethic and community involvement,'' said Carrie Moore, chair of the county's Democratic Party. The party's central committee is scheduled to meet June 17 to appoint a new register of deeds. A few weeks later, Neustifter, 63, intends to be on the road to Michigan to visit her daughter and three grandchildren. ``I'm ready to retire,'' she said.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Rabbi Herbert Jay Mandl, who will be honored by Kehilath Israel Synagogue of Overland Park, Kansas, at a dinner on Sunday, August 25, 2002. Rabbi Mandl, who has been Senior Rabbi at the synagogue for 25 years, is a graduate of Baltimore City College and Johns Hopkins University. He was ordained and graduated from the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in June 1969, and later received his orthodox ``Smicha'' ordination. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Montreal, and his Doctor of Divinity degree from the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Rabbi Mandl serves on the Kansas City, Missouri, Board of Police Commissioners as Jewish Chaplain for the city police force. He was recently appointed the first Jewish Chaplain for the Overland Park Police Department. He has served as a commissioner of the Kansas Commission on Governmental Standards and Conduct. Since the autumn of 1989, he has been an adjunct lecturer in Judaica at Rockhurst University. Rabbi Mandl was the first chairman of the Missouri Health Facilities Review Commission from 1990-1996. Of his innumerable accomplishments in the Kansas City Jewish community, Rabbi Mandl is particularly proud of his efforts which brought new Kosher facilities and wider availability of Kosher foods to the Kansas City area. Rabbi Mandl brought many innovations with him to the Kehilath Israel Synagogue, especially the all-night Shavuot study program, which continues to draw adults and youth from all over the community. He and his wife, Barbara, a teacher at Hyman Brand Hebrew Academy and the Kehilath Israel Religious School, are the parents of Aron [who is married to Chaia], an attorney in Florida; Seth, a market researcher in New York; Debbie, who has just started working on her Master's of Public Administration degree at the Columbia University Biosphere in Arizona; and Miriam, who will be a senior at the Hyman Brand Hebrew Academy in the fall. They are the proud parents of Samuel and Benjamin. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I honor such an exceptional individual. I ask all my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me now in commending Rabbi Herbert Jay Mandl.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 450, the so called Thomas Rule on the motion to go to conference on Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation. But I also want to make clear that I support Trade Promotion Authority for the President and I hope I have the opportunity to vote in favor of a conference report on TPA later this year. Globalization is here to stay. With markets now linked globally by computers, satellite communications, and advanced transportation networks, international trade and investment will play an increasing role in American prosperity. We cannot, as a nation, afford to retreat from a proactive strategy of trade expansion that takes advantage of our position as the world's most prosperous and dynamic economy. Trade liberalization is also an important tool toward developing responsible global relations. It is a tool, as the preamble of the GATT states for ``raising standards of living, ensuring full employment, developing the full use of the resources of the world and expanding the production and exchange of goods.'' Indeed, open markets are an important engine of economic growth, which can expand opportunities, raise living standards, and affect social change. More importantly, however, trade liberalization provides our nation with an additional diplomatic tool with which to deal with international disputes and/or coalition building; trade's national security component cannot be understated. Unfortunately, however, today's vote is not about trade. It isn't even a pro forma exercise to go to conference and reconcile the differences between the House and Senate. It is a cynical and unprecedented procedural move to expand the scope of the underlying trade bill and to strengthen House negotiators' position in conference. I understand and accept that the bill approved in the other chamber (H.R. 3009) contained provisions on which this House has spoken and that this Rule attempts to solidify the House's voice on matters such as the Andean Trade Bill, Customs Security, Dispute Resolution, and of course TPA. This Rule also, however, includes provisions on which this House has not yet had a clear debate and vote. I have deep concerns about the House of Representatives making an end-run on its rules and the guiding principles of a democratic body in this matter. It is for this reason that I oppose this Rule. Mr. Speaker, on December 6, 2001, 1 voted for TPA. I have supported every piece of trade legislation brought before the House since being elected to Congress. My record on trade is clear--I support free trade. This Rule today, however, is not about trade and I cannot support moves that undermine our body's rules and ideals in the name of expediency and process. Again, I hope to vote later this year on legislation granting the President Trade Promotion Authority and hope House and Senate negotiators can expeditiously develop a conference report for which I can soon vote.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. In its current form, yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas Mr. Stenholm. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I speak in opposition to the bill on the floor at the present time. Kansas families live by three simple rules. Number one, do not spend more money than you make. Number two, pay off your debts. Number three, invest in basics in the future. The basics for our country are national defense, Social Security and Medicare, a highway system, things we all would agree on. The basics for a family are food, shelter and education, health care, things, again, we all would agree on. And yet in this Congress, in this Congress, after we got our budget back in balance, we started down the wrong road again. Now I do not blame anybody in this Congress for a recession. I do not blame anybody in this Congress for what happened on 9-11 and certainly not the President. And I voted for tax cut, so I do not blame anybody for that as causing the problem we are in. But I think we need to move back to fiscal responsibility. Initially, Secretary O'Neill asked for a $750 billion increase in the debt limit. I think that is an outrageous blank check to give to this Congress. Now they are asking for $450 billion dollars. I think the appropriate amount is $150 billion and move to a plan to get us back to balance. Just to work together, Republicans and Democrats, to get us back to balance.

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader is leaving this Congress at the end of this term, and he might have a career as a comedian, but this is a very, very serious matter. Tonight, we are talking, Mr. Speaker, about raising the debt limit of this country. We are, at present, approximately $5.9 trillion in debt. Certainly nobody in this body wants to see the United States of America default on its financial obligations. That will not happen. That is not an option. But the majority leader has not provided all the information from the Concord Coalition, because I want to quote from their letter. ``An increase of roughly $250 billion would be sufficient for now without providing a blank check.'' And yet they are asking, the majority leader is asking for $450 billion. We are offering $150 billion, and I think that is sufficient. If we spend further, we are into Social Security and Medicare, and the people of America need to understand that, Mr. Speaker. That is wrong. We can come together and come up with a plan to meet the obligations of this country without invading Social Security and Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.

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

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, today I voted for the Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 3295, the Help America Vote Act; however the voting machine apparently did not register my vote. Please let the Record reflect that I intended to vote ``aye'' on House Vote 238.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2143, Permanent Death Tax Repeal Act and the Democratic substitute. I have long been a supporter of providing estate tax relief to American families, small business owners, and farmers who have worked their entire lives to transfer a portion of their estates upon their death. I have also been an advocate, however, for ensuring that we transfer to our children and grandchildren a healthy economy and a government that maintains its commitment to Social Security and Medicare. In the last Congress, I voted to repeal the estate tax and later voted to override President Clinton's veto of that legislation, Again, in the 107th Congress, I voted to repeal the estate tax as a stand- alone measure and later voted for President Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut, which contained a provision to phase out and ultimately repeal the estate tax. When I voted for the president's tax bill last year, I did so with his assurance that we would have the money to pay for it without dipping into the Social Security surplus. Unfortunately, due to the recession and the war on terrorism, the budget surpluses projected last year did not materialize and we are now borrowing money from Social Security Trust Funds to pay for even our most basis needs, including the war on terrorism. While I agree that we should fix provisions of last year's tax cut to increase certainty in the Tax Code that will help people plan for their financial future, we should also make sure that we are not borrowing money--particularly from the Social Security trust funds--to pay for these cuts while we are simultaneously trying to enhance our national security needs. We should also ensure that we aren't raising other taxes to pay for provisions that are, quite frankly, political in nature and have nothing to do with ensuring that the estate tax burden is reduced on our small businesses and farms. For example, Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill contains a hidden tax on all decedents. By fully repealing the estate tax, this bill would have the effect of repealing a provision in the Code, referred to as the ``step up in basis,'' that protects heirs from paying capital gains on estates. Anyone who has ever sold a ``capital'' assets, such as real estate, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, know that cost basis in what the gain or loss on the sales price is measured against. Generally speaking, cost basis is the purchase price of property subject to certain adjustments upward or downward. For example, if property was purchased in 1950 at a cost of $10,000 and sold in 2001 at $100,000, an individual would have a taxable capital gain of $90,000. The step-up basis interacts with estates such that when this property passes by reason of death, the heir inherits the asset with a new cost basis equivalent to the market value of the asset on the date of the benefactor's death. Taking the example above, if the property were transferred in 2001 at a value of $100,000 and the heir sold the property in 2006 for $120,000, the heir would only have a taxable capital gains of $20,000 instead of $110,000. Should this bill become law, an owner of farmland, stocks, mutual funds, or even a personal residence would have lost the opportunity to pass the asset to the next generation without passing along the owner's cost basis, thus reducing the future capital gains bill that will have to be paid when the heirs sell the asset. In short, this amounts to a tax increase on all estates due simply to the increased cost basis of the estate. Furthermore, I will also oppose the Democratic substitute to this bill. While I believe that the relief provided in this substitute-- relief that is substantial and immediate--is important, like the majority plan the Democratic substitute also has a negative budgetary effect. The Democratic substitute, in an effort to seek out ways to pay for its provisions, would raise taxes on some individuals by reinstating the 5 percent surcharge on highly-valued estates that I voted to repeal last year. That's not fair. Mr. Speaker, the best alternative here today is to support the motion to recommit, which states that we should not fund the permanent repeal of the estate tax with Social Security surplus dollars. The motion to recommit will allow the estate tax repeal to take effect--which will not become an issue for over nine years--if we are able to afford it without deficit spending and using Social Security surplus dollars. Again I have supported previous efforts to provide estate tax relief because, in the past, we have been able to afford it. I am concerned, however, that the total costs of these bills will continue to drive our nation into debt, and reduce our ability to deal with the long-term challenges facing Social Security and Medicare. Until we deal with the long term financial problems facing Social Security, we need to be very careful about any tax or spending bills that would place a greater burden on the budget in the next decade, effectively transferring these costs and burdens to our children and grandchildren.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, we have heard over and over and over that this is a rule about the war. What the majority party has done is wrapped this rule in the flag and wrapped this rule in the war and is trying to hide the fact from the American people that they are trying to increase the credit card debt of this Nation by $750 billion, three- quarters of a trillion dollars. We all are Americans, we all stand together against terrorism, and we will all provide whatever resources and money are necessary to win this war on terrorism. But at the very least we should be, we should be, and we must be honest with the American people and tell them what it is we are doing. What the Republicans are attempting to do is to sneak through a $750 billion increase in the debt limit here without a stand- alone vote. That is absolutely wrong, because what my colleagues are going to do is to pass that debt on to our children and grandchildren. Shame. Shame.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss my views on H.R. 4737 and explain my reasons for opposing this legislation and supporting a moderate, workable substitute. I believe in a ``work first'' policy for welfare recipients--the best path to independence for welfare recipients is a job. I also believe that we should do all that we can to ensure that work pays and remember that the reduction of poverty, especially child poverty, is the ultimate goal of this reauthorization. I have entered into the Record a letter from Janet Schalansky, Secretary of the Kansas Department of Social Services. Ms. Schalansky's letter expresses clearly many of my concerns with H.R. 4737, and I believe that the substitute that I support addresses many of her concerns with the underlying legislation, especially her concerns regarding unfunded mandates and the need for education, training and other supports for individuals leaving welfare. States, including my own state of Kansas under Secretary Schalansky's leadership, have done a good job implementing the provisions of the 1996 law. Kansas has reduced the cash assistance caseload by more than half, and helped approximately 37,000 adults become employed and retain employment. I want to continue to do what I can to ensure that the states have the tools and flexibility they need to help welfare recipients move from welfare to work, but H.R. 4737 falls far short of that goal. Education is the path through which welfare recipients will truly find long-term, well-paying, permanent employment. Only education and training will give welfare recipients the skills they need to move permanently to a life of self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, H.R. 4737 greatly reduces the states' discretion to allow welfare recipients to get education and training to pull themselves out of poverty. This legislation removes vocational education from the list of work-related activities that count toward the core work requirement. In addition, the bill does not provide an employment credit to the states when individuals leave welfare for work. That is why I am supporting a substitute that will allow states to combine successful ``work first'' initiatives with education and training. The substitute will give states credit when they move individuals from welfare to private-sector jobs, rather than giving them an incentive to create government ``make work'' programs. H.R. 4600 imposes an unfunded mandate on the states to the tune of $11 billion--$67 million for the state of Kansas alone. Kansas is currently facing a budget crisis and its leaders are cutting services and raising taxes as we speak just to balance next year's budget. An unfunded mandate of this magnitude could devastate the state budget. If we are going to raise the bar for the states, we must provide support so that states can reach the bar. As Secretary Schalansky notes in her letter, level funding for TANF is not sufficient to accomplish and sustain the goals of the TANF program. Furthermore, H.R. 4737 allocates funding for child care that barely keeps pace with inflation and does not begin to provide the funding necessary to provide the child care that the additional work hours will demand. For these reasons, I am supporting a substitute that will provide an extra $11 billion for child care funding over five years to help states provide child care for working welfare recipients and provide an inflationary increase for the TANF block grant. Finally, I have great concerns about the so-called ``superwaiver'' provisions of this legislation. Although I am pleased that the authors of H.R. 4737 decided to remove some of the most egregious provisions of the superwaiver, I am still concerned that the legislation will permit broad and unaccountable waivers of federal requirements in several programs, including the Food Stamp program, Workforce Investment Act, Adult Education, and the Child Care Development Fund. The states should be given the funds and flexibility they need to run a welfare program, and they should be accountable for the result. The substitute that I support includes no such broad waiver. Mr. Speaker, the House should reject H.R. 4737 and approve the substitute. Our goal is to move welfare recipients to work and help people lift themselves out of poverty. The substitute gives the states the tools they need to achieve that goal. Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, Topeka, KS, March 14, 2002. Hon. Dennis Moore, U.S. Representative, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Moore: As you study the issues surrounding the reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program during this Congressional session, please keep in mind that it is the flexibility afforded the states by TANF that has allowed Kansas to develop programs and initiatives which promote adult self- sufficiency and strengthen families. As a result of this flexibility, Kansas has been able to: Reduce the cash assistance caseload by 10,000 families since welfare reform began on October 1, 1996. Help approximately 37,000 adults become employed and retain employment for a year or longer. Provide cash assistance to approximately 9,030 adults and 22,465 children each month. Create unique employment preparation strategies and support services for addressing the multiple employment barriers of many TANF recipients. Provide innovative child care improvements, including an Early Head Start Program; an infant/toddler specialist in each of the sixteen child care resource and referral agencies; and an early care and education professional development initiative. Integrate child welfare services and TANF to help more children remain in their own home or be returned to their homes more quickly. On February 26, the Bush Administration introduced the outline of its TANF reauthorization proposal. Although the department supports the President's overall goals for the TANF program, we do not support all of his recommended changes to the program. His proposal to require all families to participate in work activities for 40 hours per week with 24 of those hours mandated to be in subsidized or unsubsidized work is especially problematic. Attached to this letter is a review of the department's position on the key provisions of the President's proposal. I hope you will consider the agency's position when these issues are debated and voted on in Congress. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant has been successful in getting families employed and off cash assistance. While much has been achieved, there is an unfinished agenda of welfare reform, one that involves on- going supports to low-income working families as well as one that seeks to remove the barriers for TANF recipients with multiple barriers to employment. The work of the TANF agency does not end when families exit the cash assistance caseload. SRS supports continued emphasis on the work first approach which is appropriate and integral to continued success. The Department recognizes that the caseload is not homogeneous and some clients can move to work easily while others require more intense interventions. In order for employed clients to remain employed, to increase wages, and to seek and obtain new and better opportunities, the state's work must continue. In order to continue helping families be successful, it is important that the flexibility currently afforded to states be continued and federal funding levels for the program remain adequate. We need to stay the course to accomplish the goals of welfare reform. If you have any questions about the President's proposal or other TANF reauthorization bills that are introduced, please feel free to contact me. I would like to keep you updated on how these proposals will affect the low income citizens of Kansas. Sincerely, Janet Schalansky, Secretary. Enclosure. Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services On February 26, 2002, the Bush Administration introduced the outline of its TANF reauthorization proposal, called Working Toward Independence. The administration indicates that child well-being is the overall goal of its plan. The plan also incorporates fatherhood and the formation and maintenance of healthy two-parent married families into the fourth purpose of the TANF program. Main components of the President's reauthorization proposal include the following: Mandates More Stringent Work Requirements. The President's proposal requires that all families engage in constructive activities leading to self-sufficiency for 40 hours per week, at least 24 hours of which must be in unsubsidized or subsidized work, on-the-job training, supervised work experience or supervised community service. Kansas does not support this change. There is overwhelming evidence from states that persons now receiving TANF cash assistance have significant barriers to employment, such as mental illness, IQ's below 75, domestic violence etc. Until these barriers are overcome or accommodated, it is unrealistic to require TANF recipients to work 24 hours per week. Many of the current TANF recipients will always struggle to find and keep even part time jobs in a competitive work environment. States will have to start-up or expand subsidized work, on the job training (OJT), supervised work experience and community service in order to meet the 24 hour per week work requirement. According to recent press releases states will also have to continue paying minimum wage for work experience or community service jobs. The result of these proposals will require increased expenses not funded in the Bush plan. Funding cuts in other TANF services, such as post employment services that assist the working poor to retain or advance in their jobs, will likely be the result. Additionally, employers do not hire employees for twenty-four hour per week jobs. They generally hire for either 20 hours per week or 40 hours per week. The TANF program has been successful due to the design flexibility given states to develop programs tailored to the needs of their recipients. The Department believes the more stringent work requirement is counterproductive and unnecessary to achieving the purposes of the TANF program. Increases Work Participation Rates. Under the Bush proposal, the state will be required to have 70 percent of its adults participating in 40 hours a week of constructive activities leading to self-sufficiency, 24 of which must be actual work, by the year 2007. There will no longer be a caseload reduction credit or a separate two-parent participation rate. Under the work participation requirements of the current TANF law, Kansas has 86 percent of its families participating 30 hours per week, and 60 percent participating 40 hours per week. Kansas would support the proposed participation rate change only if the 24/40 hour work requirement explained above is removed. Should the Bush plan be passed as is, the state will have to choose between requiring recipients, who may not be ready, to work for 24 hours a week knowing they will fail; or placing them in the right activities and accepting a penalty for failure to meet the participation rate requirement. The right activities might include remedial education, learning disability accommodation training, substance abuse, mental health or domestic violence counseling, or basic job skills training. The penalty for not meeting the work participation requirement would be a loss of $5.095 million in federal funds and a requirement to make up the loss with state funds for a total penalty of $10.19 million. In lieu of the 24 hour work requirement of the Bush plan, Kansas supports retention of the current law which designates that 20 hours of participation must be in primary activities, which include work, on the job training, work experience, and job readiness activities. Requires universal engagement of all TANF families. States will be required to engage all families in work and other constructive activities leading to self-sufficiency. Within 60 days each family must have a self-sufficiency plan for pursuing their maximum degree of self sufficiency. The family's progress must be monitored. Kansas supports this requirement as we currently develop and monitor self sufficiency plans for all TANF families. Retains the Current Five Year Time Limit and 20 Percent Exemption Limit. The Department supports retention of these provisions. The five year time limit has been a good motivational tool for those recipients who are capable of working. Continuation of the twenty percent exemption will allow persons with documented hardship conditions to receive assistance past the 60 month limit. Maintains TANF and Child Care Funding Levels. The President's proposal maintains the current level of funding for both the TANF and Child Care programs with no indexing of grants for inflation. Level funding will not be sufficient to accomplish and sustain the goals of the TANF program for the following reasons: Families now receiving cash assistance face serious work, family, and social barriers which they must overcome before becoming successfully employed. These services are expensive and far exceed the expenditures for cash grants. Working poor families continue to need support services, such as child care, transportation, tools, uniforms and other work related items, long after cash assistance eligibility ends, to retain work, advance in their jobs, and improve their prospects to become self-sufficient. As states transform TANF from cash assistance to work supports, a larger clientele becomes eligible for these benefits. With the additional participation requirements placed on states by the Bush proposal, Kansas will not be able to continue funding all needed child care services. For example, expanding the participation requirement to 24/40 will cost $1.89 million more for child care each year if the parent and child are apart during all of the participation activities. If new work requirements are mandated for TANF, federal child care funding must be increased as well. In Kansas, the cash assistance caseload has increased due to the weakened economy. This trend puts Kansas and other states in a difficult financial position as the increasing demands for cash assistance make it difficult to continue providing the child care, diversion benefits, state income tax credits, and job and transportation assistance to the working poor who are no longer receiving cash assistance. Unless TANF and child care funding levels remain adequate, states will be forced to choose between reducing work support services and turning away some of the neediest families. Kansas, therefore, supports indexing the block grants for inflation and providing increased funding for additional federal mandates. Kansas also supports the continuation of the states' Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement as it exists in the current law. Restores Supplemental and Contingency Funds, Allows for Rainy Day Funds, and Restores Ability to Transfer 10 Percent of TANF Grant to Social Services Block Grant. Although these provisions will be of no help to Kansas, they will greatly benefit some states. Kansas does not have the low rates of unemployment or poverty required to benefit from the supplemental or contingency funds and does not have any carry-over funds to benefit from the rainy day allowance. Since all TANF funds are now obligated, transferring additional TANF funds to the Social Services Block Grant would require cuts to TANF services. Kansas supports restored federal funding of the Social Services Block Grant. Discontinues State Program Waivers. The Bush administration proposes to discontinue TANF program waivers granted prior to the 1996 welfare reform legislation. Kansas does not support this recommendations. Kansas has received much national recognition for the programs it has developed to address learning disabilities, substance abuse, and domestic violence. The state has been able to accomplish this because of its waiver which allows all participation in job readiness activities to count toward meeting the state's work participation rate. With the administration's proposal to discontinue current waivers, impose a new 24/40 work participation requirement, and limit full time rehabilitative and substance abuse treatment to 3 months out of each 24 months, Kansas will be forced to drop the successful programs described above, or fail the work participation requirement and accept a financial penalty. Kansas does support removing the limitation that exists in current TANF law of not allowing more than 6 weeks of job readiness activities (only 4 of which may be consecutive). The family, social and work barriers faced by TANF recipients require much more than 6 weeks of job readiness activities to resolve. Promotes Child Well-Being and Health Marriages. The Bush plan includes enhanced funding for research, demonstrations, technical assistance, and matching grants to states. An increased focus on marriage and child well-being will be added to both the purposes of the program and the state plan requirements. This approach is designed to provide states with greater resources to pursue these goals while maintaining flexibility so that states can design programs that work. Encourages Abstinence and Prevention of Teen Pregnancy. The administration's goal for federal policy is to emphasize abstinence as the only certain way to avoid both unintended pregnancies and STDs. Although the scientific evaluation funded by Congress to study the effectiveness of abstinence- only programs will not be completed until 2003, the administration proposes refunding the Abstinence Education program at the same level as in 1996 and retaining its strong definition of how funds may be spent. The administration also proposes increasing funding for community-based abstinence education grants by 83 percent to $73 million in 2003, including funding for comprehensive evaluations of abstinence education programs. While the government's evaluation of abstinence education programs has not yet been completed, many independent evaluations have found that abstinence-only programs are ineffective in reducing unintended pregnancies, including teen pregnancies, and STD's. Because comprehensive programs which include both abstinence education and birth control information have been found to be the most effective, especially if they have a youth development focus, Kansas does not support dedicating funds exclusively to abstinence education. If the goal is to reduce out-of-wedlock births, teen pregnancies, STD's, and deaths from AIDS and Hepatitis, then states should be allowed the flexibility to develop the programs that work best in reaching the youth and adults in their states. Focuses More on Program Performance. States will be required to set performance standards in their state plans for addressing each purpose of the TANF program, to annually update their progress in meeting their goals, and to provide data to HHS to allow federal oversight of the program. The Secretary of HHS will annually rank all states in the order of their performance on indicators measuring employment, retention, and wage increase. The administration will establish a $100 million a year bonus to regard employment achievement. Each state will have numerical targets to strive for and will compete against their performance in the previous year. All states could be eligible for a bonus in any given year if their performance meets established targets. Kansas supports this bonus plan which is superior to the current bonuses measuring high performance and reduction of out-of-wedlock births. The state plan requirements, however, will be more stringent and intrusive, and thus is not supported. More authority is given to HHS for oversight in the approval process, which will hinder state flexibility. Enhances Child Support Enforcement Strategies. The administration's proposal continues rigorous enforcement of child support obligations while targeting additional child support collections to the families with greatest need by: Providing federal matching for states to provide or improve a pass through of child support to families that receive TANF; giving states the option of providing families that have left TANF the full amount of child support collected on their behalf with federal sharing of the costs; collecting a $25 annual user fee from families that have never received welfare; lowering the threshold for passport denial to $2,500; and expanding the federal offset program to allow states to collect past-due child support by withholding a limited amount of Social Security Disability Insurance payments from appropriate beneficiaries if benefits exceed $760 per month. Kansas supports these proposals if they remain options to the state. Reforms Food Stamp Program. The reforms proposed by the administration, such as simplifying some program rules, will make it easier for states to fashion a food stamp program that is friendlier to working families. However, the President's proposals are not as extensive as those in the recently passed Senate version of the Farm Bill. We support the Senate proposals. Kansas supports the President's proposal to provide food stamps to legal immigrants and to eliminate the cap on EBT costs. Kansas is not supportive of the President's proposals regarding Quality Control. If the proposals had been in place for FY 2000, the impact would have been substantial. Our sanction would have increased from $79,313 to $804,036. Integration Waivers. Kansas is supportive of the ability to coorindation among agencies that provide services to TANF recipients. Waivers have the potential to increase cost- effectiveness, reduce duplication, improve performance, streamline services, and forge a client-friendly seamless system. Waivers may be a means of: Coordinating data collection and reporting requirements across programs and agencies; developing common goals, policies, and performance measures for relevant aspects of TANF, Food Stamp, Medicaid, child care, child support, child welfare, and workforce development programs; coordinating eligibility standards, definitions, etc., for programs serving similar populations; enhancing federal funding for cross-program information technology initiatives, including the sharing of administrative and program data across agencies; simplifying federal procurement rules to better meet state needs; modifying federal confidentiality rules to allow for client eligibility verification activities and tracking; and integrating federal funding streams at the state level for programs with similar goals for serving common clients.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for his good work on this bill. I also want to join my colleague from Texas in thanking the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the ranking member. I am very, very pleased to be here today with the gentleman from Texas to honor 150 years of service by the American Society of Civil Engineers to their profession, our country, and the world. ASCE is the oldest of engineering societies and clearly one of the best in the whole world. Civil engineers literally have built America. One hundred and fifty years ago, there were no skyscrapers. There were wooden bridges and no one would have dreamed of spanning the Chesapeake Bay or the San Francisco Bay. Railroads were just beginning. Roads were at most two lanes and perhaps were even built of planks. Manned flights came over 50 years later. Now, we have an interstate highway system, an intercontinental railroad system, and a network of local and international airports that are the backbone of United States commerce. Small dams have been replaced, Mr. Speaker, with huge ones that provide large volumes of electricity. Human health has been enhanced by improved sanitation with sanitary landfills, waste water treatment facilities, and distribution systems for clean water. How much of this would have been possible without the American Society of Civil engineers? Well, we cannot know for sure, but they certainly deserve much of the credit. ASCE has encouraged generations of bright Americans to enter the profession. It has helped develop educational standards and continuing education opportunities for civil engineers, and it has established a series of institutes and a research foundation to advance the knowledge base of the profession. ASCE is the largest publisher of civil engineering information in the world, much of which is at the fingertips of the ASCE membership through its website. The American Society of Civil Engineers has even gone international and has formal relationships with professional organizations of civil engineers in almost 50 countries. The small group of engineers who banded together in 1852 would not recognize today's organization. ASCE now has around 125,000 members, over half of the civil engineers in this country, organized in sections, branches, and student chapters and clubs. ASCE is not resting on its laurels, though. It is aggressively adding new services for its members. It has ambitious programs for working with the Congress, the government at all levels, and the public at large to place the programs and policies needed to improve our built environment. Priority areas for 2002 include clean water, infrastructure financing, math and science education, natural hazards impact reduction, and smart growth. I ask my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to join with me in approving House Concurrent Resolution 387 that congratulates and honors the American Society of Civil Engineers on 150 years of service. This is a spectacular beginning and I will bet we have not seen anything yet. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H. Con. Res. 271, a resolution calling on the President to designate a National Importance of Health Care Coverage Month. It is time for the leaders of our country to acknowledge that we are facing, in the near future, a nationwide health care crisis. This crisis will cut across all sectors. Seniors insured by the Medicare program and low-income children insured by the Medicaid program are facing severe cuts in nearly every state. Workers with employer-based insurance will face radically increased premiums, and the uninsured, who are already the most vulnerable will still be without. The Baby Boomers will soon retire and flood the Medicare program. In preparation for this long-anticipated event, Congress has set forth unrealistic budgets calling for severe cuts in Medicare reimbursement for home health care, hospital services and nursing home services. At the same time, some physicians are refusing to take new Medicare patients due to an illogical and unworkable reimbursement scheme. Hospitals are closing their doors across the country due to low federal reimbursements and lack of nursing staff. Recently, in my district, all but one hospital emergency room was declared ``on diversion''--meaning they were unable to take any more ambulances or emergency patients. Yet, the administration plans to cut the hospital update again this year. We must do all that we can to ensure that this does not happen. I want to enter into the record a letter signed by myself and 24 Blue Dog colleagues asking the Speaker to support adequate reimbursement to all Medicare providers. Think for a moment if our already crumbling health care infrastructure was challenged by a crisis--a terrorist attack resulting in a large number of casualties or a bioterror attack. The time for us to act--to secure our health care system, in terms of infrastructure, workforce and health insurance coverage--is now. Approximately 44 million working Americans are uninsured. We in Congress need to realize that continuing to ignore the problem of the uninsured in our country will cost us as a nation--in terms of overall health and financial security. The uninsured are more likely to delay doctor visits, delay needed care or choose not to receive that care at all. Last year, more than 40% of uninsured adults delayed a necessary medical test or treatment. Twenty percent say that they needed, but did not get, recommended treatment last year. Many who received treatment did so at a hospital emergency room. A third of uninsured children did not see a doctor in the past year. Delaying, or not receiving health care treatment, can lead to more serious health problems. The uninsured are more likely to be hospitalized for avoidable conditions, such as pneumonia or uncontrolled diabetes. The uninsured who are finally diagnosed with cancer may often be in late stages or beyond treatment. In addition to health consequences, the financial burden on families can be severe. Debt due to high, unexpected medical bills is one of the primary reasons that families file for bankruptcy. Nearly 30% of uninsured adults say that medical bills had a major adverse impact on their families' lives. The burden falls on our local communities through our health care safety net--but that safety net is being stretched very thin. Community clinics and public hospitals in my congressional district, and all over the country, are straining under the burden of caring for uninsured Americans. Safety net providers, despite their good work, cannot take the place of quality health management and health insurance. We know who the uninsured are. And we know where they work. The statistics show us that, overwhelmingly, low income workers in small businesses are the most likely people to be uninsured. According to the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, the working uninsured are most likely to be employed in firms with less than 25 employees. But we in Congress are not doing a good job telling small businesses about the tax benefits available to small business owners who do the right thing and offer health insurance. A study of employers commissioned by the National Association of Health Underwriters found that small businesses are not always aware of the benefits, tax and otherwise, associated with offering health insurance. Fifty-seven percent of small employers do not know that health insurance premiums are 100% tax deductible. Sixty-five percent of employers do not realize that health insurance premiums are treated like general business expenses with regard to taxes. I have seen the Child Health Insurance Program make a difference to kids in my district. But despite the success of the CHIP program, 26% of poor children and 16% of near-poor children remain uninsured. Nine million American children remain uninsured. Madam Speaker, it is time for our nation to address the health care crisis that is looming on the horizon. Congress needs to act immediately to ensure that our health care system is secure, by adequately funding and maintaining our infrastructure, addressing the workforce shortage, especially that of registered nurses, and ensuring that health care coverage is available and affordable for all Americans. This resolution is a small part of that effort. Today, we need to take the first step to make the public aware of the importance of health care coverage--to ensure that small businesses are aware of the benefits of health insurance coverage, and that parents know when their children are eligible for Medicaid or CHIP. Congresswoman Wilson and I are asking the President to designate a National Importance of Health Care Coverage Month to help bring this issue to the forefront of the national health care debate. During that month, I will challenge my colleagues to tell small businesses, parents of children and uninsured people in their congressional districts about the importance of health care coverage, the existing tax benefits of offering coverage to employees and the public and private programs for which they are eligible. Lack of information should not be an additional barrier to health insurance access. We must begin now. Washington, DC, May 1, 2002. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Richard A. Gephardt, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Gephardt: We are writing to express our dismay and disappointment in the latest recommendation by the Administration to pit provider against provider by using reductions to hospitals' market basket update to restore payments to physicians. We believe this proposal is short-sighted and ill-advised. While we certainly agree that physicians deserve fair and adequate reimbursement, the Administration's proposal jeopardizes the health of patients, the viability of our communities, and the financial stability of our hospitals. The problems facing the Medicare program will not be solved without setting priorities and funding them through honest budgeting. The assumption by the Administration that Medicare will grow at a rate 10 percent less than projected by the Congressional Budget Office, and slower than medical inflation is irresponsible. Moreover, cutting Medicare payments for one provider to give to another fails to address the issue at hand: what are our priorities in the Medicare program, and are hospitals and doctors among them? We believe that they are both priorities and ought to be funded accordingly. Therefore, we strongly disagree with the Administration's recommendation to use hospital reimbursement as a ``cash cow'' for other provider adjustments. Hospitals are not only the backbones of our healthcare system, but they are also the centers of our communities. We expect great things from them, such as enhancing bioterrorism preparedness, implementing the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA), hiring and retaining essential nursing staff, and above all providing timely, quality care to the patients they treat. What they expect from their govemment in return is fair reimbursement for the vital services they provide. Our Medicare providers are facing very real and very serious circumstances, and we must answer them with serious solutions. Should Congress consider Medicare legislation this year, we urge you to support adequate reimbursement for the healthcare providers in our communities. We look forward to working with you to achieve this goal. Sincerely, Marion Berry, John Tanner, Max Sandlin, Mike Ross, David Phelps, Adam Schiff, Ellen O. Tauscher, Jim Turner, Charles W. Stenholm, Tim Holder, F. Allen Boyd, Jr., Dennis Moore, Collin Peterson, Gene Taylor, Bud Cramer, Joe Baca, Jim Matheson, Sanford Bishop, Jr., Chris John, Mike Thompson, Ronnie Shows, Mike McIntyre, Ken R. Lucus, Steve J. Israel, Jane Harman.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to the Kansas Business and Professional Women for their upcoming 83rd annual state convention, which will take place from June 7th-9th in Topeka, Kansas. I also want to congratulate their new president, Julie Smith, a resident of the Third Congressional District of Kansas, for putting together an outstanding weekend of programs and events for her members. Among the outstanding speakers scheduled are: Coach Marian Washington of the University of Kansas' women's basketball team, who will serve as keynote speaker; motivational speaker Susan Mayer; and author Suzy Allegra. A candidates' forum for Kansas Attorney General candidates is planned, as well as a sock hop, casino night, and many opportunities for networking and information exchanges. The Kansas Business and Professional Women's organization is nationally associated with the American Business and Professional Women's Association, both of which offer outstanding networking, educational and support services for their membership.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a Kansas City metropolitan area initiative called the Project Community Alert Week, May 6-12, 2002. As the co-chair of the Congressional Wind Hazard Reduction Caucus, I am pleased to see that the old Mark Twain adage is no longer true: rather than ``everyone talking about the weather and doing nothing about it,'' the Kansas City Metropolitan Emergency Management Committee (MEMC) and Price Chopper grocery store have created a multi-year program called Project Community Alert (PCA) which has the goal of placing 100,000 alarm-equipped programmable emergency weather radios in homes, schools and businesses throughout the eight-county MEMC area. The metro area emergency management coordinators will be taking the PCA message to the public, while Price Chopper is providing the radios at cost and is significantly underwriting the public outreach for the PCA Program. All 50 states are vulnerable to the hazards of windstorms. Losses in life and property can be substantial. Tornadoes are one of nature's most violent storms. In an average year, 800 tornadoes are reported across the United States, resulting in 80 deaths and over 1,500 injuries. The most violent tornadoes are capable of tremendous destruction with wind speeds of 250 mph or more. Damage paths can be in excess of one mile wide and 50 miles long. The May 3, 1999, tornado in the Wichita, Kansas, suburb of Haysville rated F4 and was responsible for 6 deaths, 150 injuries and over 140 million dollars in damage. Current federal spending, approximately $5 million, to develop and promote knowledge, practices, and policies that seek to reduce and, where possible, eliminate losses from wind related disasters, is woefully inadequate. A federal investment in wind hazard reduction will pay significant dividends in lives saved, decreased property damage, and reduced federal disaster relief costs. For this reason, on December 20, 2001, Representative Melissa Hart (R-PA) and I introduced the Hurricane, Tornado, and Related Natural Hazards Research Act to reduce extensive damage caused by hurricanes, tornadoes and other windstorms. In the meantime it is very important to have proactive community programs like Project Community Alert. The Kansas City Metropolitan Emergency Management Committee (MEMC) and Price Chopper grocery store should be heralded for their proactive concern for their community. The PCA is a great example of the local community utilizing their resources to mitigate loss of life and keep their neighbors safe. They truly are ``doing something about the weather.''

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, after the tragic events of September 11th, many dedicated Americans served our nation as volunteer Sky Marshals. I recently received a piece of correspondence from one of my constituents, Bob Dremann, whose son John served as a volunteer Sky Marshal after September 11th. I have included a copy of Mr. Dremann's correspondence, and agree with him that volunteers like his son John deserve Congress's recognition for their service. Rep. Moore: My son, John S. Dremann, just completed his detail as a volunteer Sky Marshal. He volunteered shortly after the 9/11 attacks. They were looking for persons who had federal law enforcement training and those who carried a handgun as a part of their jobs. He is now being relieved by persons who were hired and trained to be a Sky Marshal after 9/11. John is now going back to his previous job as an Avation Specialist with the U. S. Customs Service. He flies in a corporate jet looking for the bad guys, breaking laws off the Florida coast. Volunteers from other agencies also served as volunteer Sky Marshals. They are all returning to their old jobs, but, I feel they deserve our special thanks for the work that they did to protect us. The purpose of this note is to encourage you to create a Congressional recognition program for my son and all of the other brave persons who served as a Sky Marshal volunteer during the recent emergency. I would not rely on the FAA or Customs to do an adequate job of recognizing these persons. Besides, they protected all of us, so wouldn't it be very appropriate for the Congress to come up with a recognition program. Something he could show his grandchildren someday. Thank you for your help on this. Sincerely, Bob Dremann.