Dennis Moore

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the name of the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Danner) be omitted as a cosponsor of H.R. 5194, which is my bill.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express to my colleagues my great concern with this motion to instruct conferees. First, it should be clear that this motion is about contraception, not abortion. Like other contraceptives, emergency contraception can prevent--but not terminate--a pregnancy. Access to contraception can be a vital part of local efforts to reduce unintended pregnancy and reduce the number of abortions--a goal shared by members on both sides of the aisle. Second, this motion restricts the decision of local leaders. School- based clinics vary greatly across the country, and the services that they provide reflect community standards, reflected by local advisory boards made up of parents, young adults, community representatives and youth family organizations. Emergency contraception may not be an appropriate or advisable option for many schoolbased clinics. It may be, however, both necessary and appropriate for some clinics and some communities. For many low-income, uninsured students, school-based health clinics provide their only access to necessary health care. Restricting contraceptive options only for these low- income students is wrong. Mr. Speaker, I am ashamed to say that our country has more unintended teen pregnancies than any other industrialized country in the world. I challenge my colleagues to reject election-year politics and work with me toward policies that prevent unintended pregnancies before the morning after. As for me, I will redouble my efforts to help our kids and their parents get the information they need about the consequences and costs of unintended pregnancy and the benefits of abstinence, good reproductive health and smart choices.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, today I join with ten of my colleagues in introducing legislation that will keep guns out of the hands of our most violent criminals. In my twelve years as an elected District Attorney, I found that to the victim of a violent crime it makes little difference whether the perpetrator was an adult or a juvenile. I believe we all can agree that violent persons should not be able to legally possess a firearm. We already have legislation that makes it illegal for convicted felons to possess a firearm. But a loophole allows people who were convicted of violent crimes when they were juveniles to possess firearms. This is a narrow loophole that should be closed. This loophole was brought to my attention by one of my constituents, Bob Lockett, who owns a gun store in my district. An individual with a conviction for a shooting death as a juvenile in California tried to purchase gun parts at his store. I commend Mr. Lockett for bringing this serious matter to my attention, and I agree with him that these individuals with a violent past should be prohibited from possessing firearms. And although the state of Kansas has this law, I believe that this should be a federal law to prevent violent perpetrators from possessing firearms nationwide. Mr. Speaker, persons who have a juvenile adjudication for a violent felony should not--should never--possess a firearm. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, the text of which appears below.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, the week of September 17-23 has been officially designated as Constitution Week. This marks the 213th anniversary of the signing of our Constitution. The guardian of our liberties, our Constitution established our republic as a selfgoverning 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.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4942, the District of Columbia appropriations bill. As reported by the Appropriations Committee, this bill contains an appropriation that is $22 million below last year's funding level. Additionally, this bill provides 7 percent less funding than the District requested. But Mr. Speaker, what bothers me the most about this bill is its inherently undemocratic nature. H.R. 4942 contains dozens of general provisions that preempt local decision-making power from the District and redistribute it to the Federal Government. Through these unnecessary and burdensome provisions, this legislation undermines local control and intrudes into the internal affairs of the District of Columbia. H.R. 4942 contains numerous underfunded priorities, including the following cuts from last year's levels and the administration's requests: A $3 million reduction in the fiscal year 2000 funding level for the program that assists District of Columbia students who must pay out-of- state college tuition costs. This funding cut is particularly insidious because the District is not a state, and therefore local high school graduates do not have the access to a state system of higher education offered to students in the rest of the country. Education must be one of our highest priorities as a nation, and this bill neglects that goal. No funds for adoption incentives for children in the District of Columbia foster care system. The administration requested $5 million for this priority, which helps remove children from the foster care system while seeking to place them with a loving and stable family. In addition to the concerns about funding levels, H.R. 4942 includes a number of legislative riders, several of which have been attached to the bill in prior years. I support the amendments offered by Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton from the District that would strike approximately 70 general legislative provisions in the bill. These provisions contain regulations and restrictions related to the management and finances of the District Government, as well as a rider that would ban the use of funds for activities intended to secure voting representation in Congress for the District of Columbia. Mr. Chairman, the residents of the District deserve to be represented in the Congress of the United States, just like the residents of the Third District of Kansas deserve to be represented. District residents deserve the right to advocate the support or defeat of pending legislation before Congress, a right currently enjoyed by residents in all 50 states. The founding Fathers fought the Revolutionary War to protest taxation without representation, and all that the District's residents are requesting is full access to this inherent American right. Mr. Chairman, I have supported and will continue to support both the theory and practice of ``home rule'' for the District of Columbia. The District's nearly 600,000 residents deserve the same right to self- government that the rest of America enjoys. I urge my colleagues to stand up today for the principle of local government and the belief that all Americans have the inherent right to govern themselves without unnecessary Federal intervention.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4516, the FY 2001 Legislative Branch/Treasury-Postal Conference Report. This mini-omnibus appropriations bill is business as usual and I did not come to Congress to engage in business as usual. The people of Kansas' third district expect and deserve more of us. As Congress has done for too many years, today it will be voting on a bill that violates both the rules of the House and the Senate in the name of political expediency. Under these rules, Congress is supposed to consider 13 appropriations bills for each fiscal year. Under normal procedures, those bills should come before the House and the Senate individually, with opportunities for amendment and debate. After a conference report is negotiated, the House should then have the opportunity to vote on each bill, standing alone. Unfortunately, Congress has refused to follow its own rules. The majority party has combined two appropriations bills in this so-called conference report--one of which has yet to be considered by the full Senate. I have only been a Member of this body for 18 months, but I understand that these rules and procedures were put in place to protect the rights of all Members to represent fully the interests and concerns of our constituents. We cannot do so when we are confronted with an omnibus conference report which rolls together a number of provisions, that one of our two deliberative bodies has not had the opportunity to fully consider. While the process under which this bill has been considered is unacceptable, it does contain many programs which I have fought for and for which I would vote under normal circumstances. I am pleased that this bill contains provisions that strongly support law enforcement efforts in this country. Fully funding the administration's gun-law- enforcement initiatives, including a proposal to add 600 employees to the agency to more fully enforce existing gun laws, suggests that this Congress is finally getting serious about stopping the scourge of gun crimes that have crippled this nation. This bill also contains a provision that I strongly support which would roll back the 0.5 percent surcharge on Federal employee retirement contributions. This increase was mandated by the 1997 balanced budget law and has disproportionately affected Federal employees by taxing more of their gross income for retirement than their private sector counterparts contribute. Mr. Speaker, the budget is balanced: it is time to stop funding surpluses at the expense of our hard working Federal employees. Finally, I strongly support the provision in this bill that would repeal the 3 percent telephone excise tax that was levied as a luxury tax over 100 years ago to fund the Spanish American War. Mr. Speaker, the war is over and, with over 94 percent telephone ownership, this service is no longer a luxury. It is past time to repeal this tax and I voted to do so back in May when the House first considered this issue. I am disappointed that the majority party chose to hold this important issue hostage by marrying it with this controversial measure. While I support many of the priorities in this bill, I remain concerned about one provision in this bill that suggest this Congress is not serious about holding the line on spending. Mr. Speaker, about a decade ago, through legislative slight of hand, Congress passed a law to allow for the automatic annual increase in Members' salaries. This was a politically motivated move to shield Congress from casting embarrassing votes to increase their own pay. While we were technically afforded the opportunity to vote against an increase by casting a no vote on a procedural issue, the fact remains that by voting in support of this legislation, we will be voting for our own pay raises. This will be a vote that comes at the expense of other mandates an earlier Congress created: Two years ago the House voted overwhelmingly for the IRS Reform and Restructuring Act which followed recommendations of a commission that studied the IRS and stated that IRS budgets ``should receive stable funding for the next three years so that the leaders can . . . improve taxpayer service and compliance.'' Mr. Speaker, this bill, contrary to the recommendations of a bipartisan commission and contrary to the will of this House, cuts $465 million from the administration's request. If this Congress is serious about holding the line on spending, we would not hold our other priorities hostage to our desires of a larger paycheck. I will be voting against this bill and I will be voting against a pay increase--I urge my colleagues to put their money where their mouth is and reject final passage of this legislation.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill that will help uninsured Americans get the health insurance coverage they want and need. It has been endorsed by the Blue Dog Coalition, whose members support this fiscally responsible, targeted solution that will help uninsured Americans and the small businesses where many of them work. Like a majority of my colleagues, I support the Patients' Bill of Rights that will give patients and their doctors power over health care decisions. I have been frustrated by the slow work of the conference committee in coming to a compromise on this legislation. I want a Patients' Bill of Rights to pass before Congress adjourns for the year. I want to go home and tell my constituents that I have done what I promised to do. I hope that the bill I am introducing today will provide a middle ground for the conference negotiations. A majority of this House supports the Patients' Bill of Rights, and both Republicans and Democrats can agree that the problem of the uninsured is one of our most pressing public health concerns. The bill would provide immediate 100 percent deductibility of health insurance premiums for self-employed individuals. My bill also would create a temporary tax credit for small employers who have not offered health insurance in the past two years. The credit will reimburse 20 percent of health insurance costs, up to $400 per year for individuals and $1000 for family coverage. Businesses can get an additional 10 percent tax credit (up to 30 percent total) if they join in a Health Benefit Purchasing Coalition, which provides small employers a way to pool resources, negotiate collectively with insurers, and administer health plans for small employer groups. In order to foster innovation on the state level, the bill creates a state grant program for initiatives that expand health insurance to the uninsured through market innovations. I have attached the letter sent to Senator Nickles from the Blue Dog Coalition asking him to consider our bill as a reasonable compromise to the $48 billion access bill that passed the House with no offsets. This bill is targeted, fiscally responsible, and could become law. Small employers are struggling to provide health insurance coverage for their employees, and Congress should do something to help them. It's the right thing to do for business, and it's the night thing to do for millions of Americans who want and need health insurance.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a noteworthy resident of the Third Congressional District of Kansas, Brian M. O'Laughlin, who lives in Prairie Village, Kansas, with his wife, Mimi, and their four sons. Mr. O'Laughlin recently was named ``Man of the Year'' by the Missouri Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors for his service and leadership to his industry, community and clientele. He has been in the insurance and financial services industry in the Kansas City area for the past 17 years, where his practice specializes in insurance. Mr. O'Laughlin is a past president of the Kansas City Life Underwriters Association [KCLUA] and currently serves on its board. KCLUA awarded him its highest honor in January 1999, as the ``Herbert Hedges Man of the Year.'' He also has served his community as president of the Rockhurst High School Alumni Association and as the assistant coach and general manager of the Junior Blues High School Rugby Club. He was awarded the American Red Cross ``Certification of Recognition for Extraordinary Personal Action'' in July 1977 for resuscitating a two year old boy in a 1976 swimming pool accident. Mr. O'Laughlin is: a charter member of the Serra Club of Johnson County, Kansas; past school board member of St. Ann's School and former PTA co-president, with Mimi O'Laughlin. He currently serves on the finance council for St. Ann's Catholic Church in Prairie Village, Kansas. He has been involved with organizations such as: the Leukemia Society; the Chamber of Commerce of Greater Kansas City; the Salvation Army, the Heart Association; Friends of the Arts and Friends of the Zoo; and the ``Leave a Legacy'' Foundation. Finally, Brian O'Laughlin has coached over twenty five seasons of soccer, basketball and rugby. He also is a certified ``International Doping Control Officer'' for various international sports organizations and tests world class athletes for steroid use to ensure fair competition and the safety of the athletes. Mr. Speaker, Brian O'Laughlin is the kind of concerned citizen whose selfless dedication to others binds our communities together. I commend him on his recognition as ``Man of the Year'' by the Missouri Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors and I am pleased to have this opportunity to publicly commend his good works before the House of Representatives.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4871, the FY 2001 treasury-postal appropriations bill. I am pleased that the committee reported an appropriations bill that strongly supports law enforcement efforts in this country. Fully funding the administration's gun-law-enforcement initiatives, including a proposal to add 600 employees to the agency to more fully enforce existing gun laws, suggests that this Congress is finally getting serious about stopping the scourge of gun crimes that have crippled this nation. I hope this is a sign of more to come in promoting public safety and preventing these senseless crimes by approving legislation on juvenile justice which has languished in a conference committee for over a year. This bill also contains a provision that I strongly support which would roll back the 0.5% surcharge on federal employee retirement contributions. This increase was mandated by the 1997 balanced budget law and has disproportionately affected federal employees by taxing more of their gross income for retirement than their private sector counterparts contribute. Just yesterday, the CBO announced that we will run in FY 2001 a surplus of over $100 billion. Mr. Speaker, the budget is balanced: it is time to stop funding surpluses at the expense of our hard working federal employees. While I support many of the priorities in this bill and commend the committee on a job well done in allocating finite resources, I remain concerned about one provision in this bill that suggest this Congress is not serious about holding the line on spending. Mr. Chairman, about a decade ago, through legislative slight of hand, Congress passed a law to allow for the automatic annual increase in Members' salaries. This was a politically motivated move to shield Congress from casting embarrassing votes to increase their own pay. While we were technically afforded the opportunity to vote against an increase by casting a no vote on a procedural issue, the fact remains that by voting in support of this legislation, we will be voting for our own pay raises. This will be a vote that comes at the expense of other mandates an earlier Congress created: Two years ago the House voted overwhelmingly for the IRS Reform and Restructuring Act which followed recommendations of a commission that studied the IRS and stated that IRS budgets ``should receive stable funding for the next three years so that the leaders can . . . improve taxpayer service and compliance.'' Mr. Chairman, this bill, contrary to the recommendations of a bipartisan commission and contrary to the will of this House, cuts $465 million from the administration's request. If this Congress is serious about holding the line on spending, we would not hold our other priorities hostage to our desires of a larger paycheck. I will be voting against this bill and I will be voting against a pay increase--I urge my colleagues to put their money where their mouth is and reject final passage of this legislation.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I rise to share my support for H.R. 4700, which would grant the consent of Congress to the Kansas and Missouri Metropolitan Cultural District Compact. I like to start by thanking my friend and colleague, Congresswoman Karen McCarthy, for her leadership on this issue. Her tireless work for the Fifth District of Missouri and the people of the Kansas City metropolitan area should be commended. Over the past four years, we have enjoyed the successes of the original bi-state compact that was passed by Congress in 1994, that continues to receive tremendous support from individuals and organizations on both sides of the state line. This agreement is essential to a unique city with a state line running through the middle of town. Many residents work on one side of state line and reside on the other. The economy and culture of the region are vitally important to all residents of the Kansas City metropolitan area. This compact made possible the restoration of Union Station and the completion of Science City, now one of the Kansas City metropolitan area's most important cultural and education facilities. Union Station is a remarkable example of what can be accomplished when federal, state, and local governments work with private and public contributors to improve our communities. As the existing compact is scheduled to conclude at the end of 2001, it is our responsibility to see to it that a new compact is approved to continue this successful venture. Furthermore, it is important to take this opportunity to correct the advantage of two votes that Missouri currently holds on the Bi-State Board, due to the consolidation of the governments of the Kansas City, Kansas, and Wyandotte County, Kansas, into the new Unified Government. This inequity should be resolved to preserve the balance and harmony of the Compact. As we move into the twenty-first century, it is even more important to take steps to preserve our common history and strengthen our great community. The Bi-State Compact will enable us to take on cultural initiatives, improve education, develop transportation proposals, and improve the lives of those in the Kansas City metropolitan area. I support this legislation, which I have cosponsored, because I believe the residents of the metropolitan area should be able to decide for themselves if they want to participate in this project. I can think of no better way to decide the issue than to give the authority directly to voters on both sides of the state line. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a successful anti- violence organization in my district. Founded in 1982 in Kansas City, the STOP Violence Coalition's mission is to promote non-violence through education, programming, and collaboration. The program serves 25,000 students, parents, educators, and inmates each year through kindness education, bullying prevention, and inmate rehabilitation. Its founder and one of my constituents, SuEllen Fried, is a well-known leader in the fields of child abuse and peer abuse prevention. The STOP Violence Coalition has had success with many of its programs. The Reaching Out From Within\TM\ program, directed toward inmate rehabilitation, has a 23% recidivism rate, compared to the national average of approximately 60%. The Coalition has also compiled the 12 Contributing Factors to Violence\TM\, organized the Elder Rights Coalition\TM\, and collaborated with area agencies to address issues related to violence prevention and organization. The Coalition has received the 1999 National American Community Award from the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. One of the STOP Violence Coalition's most effective programs is the Kindness is Contagious\TM\ program. Last week, at the request of another community leader, who is also of my constituents, Norman Polsky, I distributed Kindness is Contagious . . . Catch it! buttons to each of my colleagues in the House. The purpose of the buttons is to wear the Kindness button until someone is observed behaving kindly toward another, at which time the button is passed on. The recipient is asked to observe others for kind behavior and to pass on the button to someone else who deserves the recognition. Thus it become everyone's responsibility to continue the chain of kindness and giving. Though the program is school-based, the message is not just for youth. Youth and grown-ups alike need to keep in mind that although we have strong feelings and will disagree about certain things, at the end of the day we should always treat people with the dignity they deserve. Nearly 300,000 students in 400 Kansas City area schools have participated in Kindness is Contagious\TM\, which promotes the passing of the Kindness button. Since June of this year, over 1,500 inquiries from concerned citizens throughout the country and world have contacted the STOP Violence Coalition to see how they can start the Kindness program in their own communities. Mr. Speaker, this program is something that has made people around the nation stop and think about their personal behavior and how it affects others, something all of us--within and outside of Congress-- should always keep in mind. I would like to thank SuEllen Fried and Normal Polsky for their leadership and vision with these programs and their many efforts throughout our community. I commend them for their tireless service and dedication. I hope these buttons will change hands many times and encourage caring, consideration, and compassion. I will be wearing this button in an effort to promote kindness. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort and spread this program to their districts.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4811, the FY 2001 foreign operations appropriations bill. This bill is more than $300 million below current funding levels and almost $2 billion less than the Administration's request. The allocation of resources in this bill will not enable our nation to carry out an effective foreign policy to meet our vital national security needs. The low levels of funding in key areas of this bill will hinder our ability to respond to and confront ongoing development around the world. Many countries around the world are undergoing rapid change; our nation now has an unique and unprecedented opportunity--and indeed, a responsibility--to provide global stability through the spread of democracy and the promise of economic growth. Mr. Chairman, in addition to failing our vital foreign policy and national security objectives, this bill fails in responsibly allocating resources towards other critical priorities. While the overall request has been reduced by 10 percent, the amounts requested to address the problems of infectious disease, poverty alleviation, access to family planning, and debt relief in the world's poorest countries have been cut in a disproportionate manner: The bill underfunds, by $390 million, our commitment to provide debt relief to the world's poorest countries. The Jubilee 2000 campaign for debt relief, which received bipartisan support throughout the United States and with a broad spectrum of religious leaders and organizations. The bill also reduces, by $42 million, funds to combat worldwide HIV/ AIDS. The bill hinders developing nations' ability to grow by drastically cutting funds for the International Development Association, the African Development Bank and Fund and the Asian Development Fund by 32 percent. This bill also cuts nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, de-mining, and related programs by 32 percent. Finally, this bill cuts, by $385 million, international family planning programs; and imposes restrictions on foreign organizations which are contrary to our long-held constitutional principles of free speech. There are, however, provisions in this bill that I strongly support. This bill includes increases for the Child Survival and Disease account and the Peace Corps, for example. The most important priority that this bill funds well, however, is the maintenance of our commitment to the state of Israel and the peace process in the Middle East. Mr. Chairman, foreign aid should not be immune from scrutiny and budget cuts; however, it should not be the victim of skewed priorities. Indeed, robust and well-directed foreign assistance programs are essential for our national security. The process of building stability around the globe my combating infectious disease and poverty, working for conflict resolution, enhancing democratization,and fostering the conditions for economic growth ultimately benefits us all. Unfortunately, the allocation of resources in this bill fails to recognize this fundamental fact, shortchanges our foreign policy goals, and undermines our national security. I will vote against this misguided bill today and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1102, and I urge my colleagues in this body to pass 1102 today. Back as a new freshman Member of this body, in February of last year, I introduced H.R. 802, which would basically increase the contribution limit from $2,000 to $5,000. That concept at least was incorporated in this bill, and I am very, very proud today to stand here in support of again H.R. 1102. As a matter of national policy, I think it makes perfect sense that we try to encourage Americans to save more, number one; and, number two, to save more in private retirement accounts to supplement Social Security accounts for later on to take the stress and the strain off of Social Security. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to have had an opportunity to work on a bipartisan basis with the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), and others who have spoken here today in support of this legislation. It truly is a good experience to work in a bipartisan basis. When I go home, I talk to my constituents back home, they tell me, they are really tired of all the partisan bickering in Congress. They are tired of hearing the Republicans did this, the Democrats did this, and what they would like to see us doing is working together. This is a perfect example of where Republicans and Democrats have come together across the aisle and worked on behalf of the American people. This is not a Republican idea. This is not a Democrat idea. It is a good idea and should be law, and I urge its passage.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently voted yes on Roll Call No. 369 and was unable to correct my vote in time prior to announcement of the result. My intention was to vote no.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4690, the FY 2001 Commerce-Justice-State-Judiciary appropriations bill. This bill is more than $2 billion below current funding levels, achieving these reductions by making unacceptable cuts in several key areas. Among these cuts is the $201 million reduction in the President's gun enforcement initiative request. This initiative would provide funding to hire federal, state, and local prosecutors for gun crimes. As a former district attorney, I know that the unfortunate reality is that our judicial system is seriously lacking the resources it needs to see that each gun crime receives strong legal inquiry. There are existing laws that can be enforced in order to lessen the prevalence of gun violence in our communities. Without the proper tools, adequate manpower, and financial resources, however, these laws will be less likely to serve their intended purpose. Mr. Chairman, this bill also cuts other critical law enforcement programs, such as the administration's Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS) program. H.R. 4690 provides only $595 million, 55 percent less than the $740 million requested for the COPS program. These deep cuts come at the expense of several important initiatives within the overall COPS program. This bill does not provide funding for a COPS community prosecutors program for which $200 million was requested. It does not fund a new crime prevention program for which $135 million was requested. Finally this bill underfunds, by 37 percent, the request for public safety and community policing grants. This FY 2001 Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill also fails to fund the $21 billion authorization to ensure proper monitoring and compliance with international trade agreements. These monies were authorized as part of a bipartisan agreement that this House passed along with PNTR with China just a few weeks ago. While approval of PNTR was in our national interest, this bipartisan proposal was offered to address congressional concerns about Chinese compliance with their WTO obligations, human rights practices in China, and Taiwan's entry into the WTO. I am disappointed that the leadership reneged on its commitment to provide funding for this important monitoring and compliance agreement. Mr. Chairman, because of these and other funding shortfalls, and because the bill contains objectionable riders, such as preventing the use of funds to move forward on implementing the Kyoto Protocol, I will be voting ``no'' on H.R. 4690 and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4516, the FY2001 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, which would slash funding to the Government Printing Office's Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP). Rather, I support the bipartisan manager's amendment that restores funding to this important public resource. The goal of the FDLP is to assure current and permanent public access to information published by the federal government of the United States. The FDLP, under the auspices of the Government Printing Office (GPO), provides public documents free of charge to approximately 1,350 libraries in the United States and its territories. Depository libraries receive all government publications of public interest and/or educational value, with the exception of classified materials. The FY2001 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act would cut the FDLP's budget by 61 percent, from $29.9 million in FY2000 to $11.6 million in FY2001. By contrast, the Senate's version of this bill would actually increase the library program's budget by 4 percent. The manager's amendment, sponsored by Representatives Taylor and Pastor, would restore $95.8 million to this spending bill, including $14.1 million to the FDLP. This amendment would bring the total FDLP appropriation to $25.7 million, or $4.2 million less than the FY2000 appropriation. While this funding cut is still unacceptable, the manager's amendment would, at the very least, allow the FDLP to continue operating into 2001. Mr. Chairman, the University of Kansas Government Documents and Map Library is the only regional depository library in the entire state of Kansas. Though other depository libraries exist in my home state, they receive only a small percentage of the documents that the Government Documents and Map Library receives annually. At a regional depository library like the one at KU, individuals can read a wide range of government documents dating from 1789, such as the first Census report for the United States, which the government completed in 1790. Though the government documents are made available to the public at no cost, there is a cost to the libraries that maintain them. As a regional depository library, KU is required by federal law to maintain the information in perpetuity. The cost of storing a total collection of more than 2 million government documents can run into the tens of thousands of dollars annually, not counting salaries for a staff to catalog and maintain the information. Without federal funding, the Government Documents and Map Library would be forced to close its doors and end its years of service to the Kansas public. Mr. Chairman, though anyone can access documents supplied under the auspices of the FDLP, the people who rely upon this information the most are small-business owners. Small business men and women in Johnson County and other areas in Kansas' Third District frequently utilize the Federal Register, which lists proposed regulations and information on upcoming government contracts. Small businesses have a right to access the Federal Register and other federal documents, and the federal government has the responsibility to make sure that America's small business people have access to them. I urge my colleagues to vote for the vitally important manager's amendment, which will restore the public's access to taxpayer-funded government documents. The public has an inherent right to obtain information contained in government documents that have been published at public expense. Above all, Mr. Chairman, a well-informed citizenry, cognizant of the policies and activities of its representative government, is essential for the proper functioning of democracy.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for their excellent work on this bill. Back in February, I filed the Campaign Integrity Act of 2000 which is required as to 527s only disclosure, I think that should be the bottom line, and that is where we are now. I am proud, even though this is not my bill, to support this bill, because it is what the American people demand, it is what the American people deserve. When I go home, I hear from my constituents, and I think a lot of my colleagues do, too, we are so tired of all the partisan bickering, the Democrats did this and the Republicans did that; what they wanted it us to do is come up here and do the people's agenda. That is what we are doing tonight by just campaign finance reform bill is disclosure so people will know who is trying to influence their vote and who is trying to influence Federal elections. That is the bottom line. I invite all people of good will to vote for this bill tonight.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my grave concern with the bill before us today. This bill critically underfunds important national priorities that are too numerous to mention. Many Members of this House have expressed their concern about the Federal Government's chronic failure to meet its commitment to special- needs kids. Yet, this bill provides just $6.6 billion in funding for special education, $514 million over last year's funding but far short of the $16 billion-plus we need to fulfill this longstanding commitment to our most vulnerable children. Mr. Chairman, I have a school in my district where exposed wires dangle from the ceiling, and rainwater seeps over those wires, but this bill provides no funds to repair collapsing schools. Never mind that more than 200 of my colleagues have heeded the call of their school districts, who are begging for assistance repairing schools. 53.2 million kids--a national enrollment record--started school in 1999 and 2.2 million teachers will be needed in the coming years to teach them what they need to know. The teacher shortage is an imminent national crisis, yet this bill includes no funds to continue the class size reduction initiative that is putting 100,000 new teachers in our schools. Mr. Chairman, we know that quality early childhood programs for low- income children can increase the likelihood that children will be literate, employed, and educated, and less likely to be school dropouts, dependent on welfare, or arrested for criminal activity. This bill, however, cuts the President's request for Head Start by $600 million, which denies 53,000 low-income children the opportunity to benefit from this comprehensive child development program. Tragically, our country has become desensitized to school violence, accustomed to reports of shootings in schools. School shootings are no longer front page news. Yet, this bill eliminates assistance for elementary school counselors that serve more than 100,000 children in 60 high-need school districts that could intervene and identify troubled kids before they harm themselves, their classmates or their teachers. Earlier this week, I supported a bill to relieve the estate tax with great reservation. I have long been a supporter of responsible estate tax relief that maintains our national commitments--paying down the national debt, protecting Social Security and Medicare, and supporting important domestic priorities such as the ones I have listed here. The leadership of this House, however, gave us one vehicle for estate tax relief, and I supported it with the hope that the Senate and the conference committee will craft a fiscally responsible compromise. Today, however, I am faced with this bill that turns its back on our Nation's number one priority--our kids. The leadership of this House expects a veto of this irresponsible bill. I am voting against this bill today and I ask my colleagues to do the same. We then can return to the drawing board and craft a fiscally responsible bill that reflects our priorities as a nation.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my grave concern with the bill before us today. This bill critically underfunds important national priorities that are too numerous to mention. Many members of this House have expressed their concern about the federal government's chronic failure to meet its commitment to special needs kids. Yet, this bill provides just $6.6 billion in funding for special education, $514 million over last year's funding but far short of the $16 billion-plus we need to fulfill this longstanding commitment to our most vulnerable children. Mr. Speaker, I have a school in my district where exposed wires dangle from the ceiling, and rainwater seeps over those wires, but this bill provides no funds to repair collapsing schools. Never mind that more than 200 of my colleagues have heeded the call of their school districts, who are begging for assistance repairing schools. 53.2 million kids--a national enrollment record--started school in 1999 and 2.2 million teachers will be needed in the coming years to teach them what they need to know. The teacher shortage is an imminent national crisis, yet this bill includes no funds to continue the class size reduction initiative that is putting 100,000 new teachers in our schools. Mr. Chairman, we know that quality early childhood programs for low- income children can increase the likelihood that children will be literate, employed, and educated, and less likely to be school dropouts, dependent on welfare, or arrested for criminal activity. This bill, however, cuts the President's request for Head Start by $600 million, which denies 53,000 low-income children the opportunity to benefit from this comprehensive child development program. Tragically, our country has become desensitized to school violence accustomed to reports of shootings in schools. School shootings are no longer front page news! Yet, this bill eliminates assistance for elementary school counselors that serve more than 100,000 children in 60 high-need school districts that could intervene and identify troubled kids before they harm themselves, their classmates or their teachers. Earlier this week, I supported a bill to relieve the estate tax with great reservation I have long been a supporter of responsible estate tax relief that maintains our national commitments--paying down the national debt, protecting Social Security and Medicare, and supporting important domestic priorities such as the ones I have listed here. The leadership of this House, however, gave us one vehicle for estate tax relief, and I supported it with the hope that the Senate and the conference committee will craft a fiscally responsible compromise. Today, however, I am faced with this bill that turns its back on our nation's number one priority--our kids. The leadership of this House expects a veto of this irresponsible bill. I am voting against this bill today and I ask my colleagues to do the same. We then can return to the drawing board and craft a fiscally responsible bill that reflects our priorities as a nation.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Act. 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. While H.R. 8 is the vehicle that the House leadership wishes to pursue to achieve this goal, I believe there is a better way to provide relief and maintain our commitments to paying down the national debt, protecting Social Security and Medicare, and other priorities. This is why I will also be supporting the substitute to H.R. 8. The alternative will increase the estate tax exclusion for family- owned farms and businesses to $4 million and simplify the rules to allow a surviving spouse to automatically receive any credits that were applied to the estate of the deceased. It will also increase the unified exemption to $1.1 million and reduce estate tax rates by 20 percent. All of these changes will be made immediately, instead of delaying relief to the small businesses and family farmers who truly need relief for several years as H.R. 8 would do. H.R. 8 does not repeal the estate tax for 10 years; rather, it shaves the marginal tax rates by a total of 14.5 percent over 5 years, delaying estate tax relief to the small businesses and farms that truly need it. H.R. 8 uses a phase-in period to hide its real effects. While the first 10 years cost only $104 billion, I have deep concerns about the costs of this legislation outside the 10 year budget window. They explode to $50 billion per year, or $500 billion in the second ten years. Mr. Speaker, in February 2000, I received a score from the Joint Committee on Taxation for H.R. 3127, a bill I introduced to provide estate tax relief by immediately increasing the exclusion to $3 million. I anticipated that this score would have less budgetary consequences than the vetoed estate tax provisions in last year's $792 billion tax package. Joint Tax scored the estate provisions in that bill, which tracks closely with today's bill at $65 billion, while they scored my bill at $211 billion. This perplexed me; and when I wrote Joint Tax back for an explanation, they replied: ``your bill provides substantially more relief through fiscal year 2009 from the estate gift, and generation-skipping transfer taxes than the relief contained in Title VI of H.R. 2488.'' I have enclosed copies of these letters for the record. Simply, H.R. 8 would have the American people believe that they will receive immediate and substantial estate tax relief. This bill delays a full repeal, which will have budget implications that this country simply cannot afford. With over $500 billion in lost revenue, this has the potential to put this country back on the wrong fiscal track of increased deficit spending and an exploding national debt. Although the majority claims to support retiring the publicly held debt, they have begun the session by scheduling several tax bills funded by the projected budget surplus without giving any consideration to the impact that the bills will have on our ability to retire our $5.7 trillion national debt. These tax cuts, however, must be made in the context of a fiscally responsible budget that eliminates the publicly held debt, strengthens Social Security and Medicare, and addresses our other priorities. We can and we have cut taxes. In February, I voted for and the House of Representatives passed a $182 billion marriage penalty relief bill. In March, I voted for and the House passed a $122 billion small business tax relief bill, which included estate tax relief. Later in March, I voted for and the House passed a bill eliminating the Social Security earnings test. And, in April I voted for and the House passed a bill to repeal the telephone excise tax at a cost of over $51 billion. Today, the House will likely pass a $104 billion estate tax relief bill. That brings the total tax relief approved by the House to date up to over $450 billion or a little more than 50 percent of the projected on budget surplus of $930 billion. I supported all previous efforts to provide tax relief because each has had a relatively modest cost when considered in isolation. I am concerned, however, that the total costs of these bills will be nearly as much as the vetoed tax bill, and could even be more expensive. This is why I intend to support the fiscally responsible substitute which provides immediate estate tax relief targeted to farmers and small businesses while protecting other urgent priorities such as paying down the debt and shoring up the long-term future of Social Security and Medicare. I will also support, however, final passage of H.R. 8 because it is the only vehicle the leadership will allow to provide estate tax relief. I will not obstruct that vehicle; however, I hope the Senate and the conference committee consider carefully compromise language that provides substantial and immediate relief, that is fiscally responsible, and that the President will sign.

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit. The majority whip said, ``I am for full disclosure and immediate disclosure.'' What we say is not nearly as important as how we vote. This motion only requires organizations engaging in political activity to name the contributors, how much was contributed, and how the money was spent. Disclosure, simple disclosure. The American people are fed up with hypocrisy and delays. What we need now is action. Last night, John McCain stood up in the United States Senate and stood up for the American people on behalf of disclosure. I urge all of my colleagues on this body on both sides of the aisle to stand up for disclosure. The American people deserve, expect, and demand it.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, today I honor a family and a foundation that have changed the lives of thousands of cancer patients in our country-- Richard and Annette Bloch and the volunteers of the R.A. Bloch Cancer Foundation. In 1978, Richard Bloch was told he had terminal lung cancer and that he had 3 months to live. He refused to accept this prognosis, and after two years of aggressive therapy, he was told he was cured. Since Richard's bout with cancer, he and his wife Annette have devoted their lives to helping other cancer patients. Richard, one of America's best known businessmen, sold his interest in H&R Block, Inc. and retired from the company in 1982 to be able to devote all of his efforts to fighting cancer. The Bloch Cancer Foundation, which is fully supported financially by the Bloch family, is fueled by over a thousand volunteers--other cancer survivors and supporters who share the vision of Richard and Annette Bloch, such as: Doctors who have shared their time, knowledge and expertise; Home volunteers who call newly diagnosed cancer patients and place the metaphorical arm around a shoulder. These home volunteers guide new patients through their apprehension and fears so they can face their disease with confidence; Computer specialists who have developed the web sites so patients and survivors can seek help over the Internet; Volunteers who give their time on a weekly basis to answer phones and e-mail and form the backbone of an organization committed to cancer patients; The professionals and volunteers of the Bloch Cancer Support Center; Those who help develop Cancer Survivors Parks; Volunteers who helped to mail more than 98,000 books that were requested by cancer patients; The Board of Directors who help Dick and Annette develop and implement the programs of the foundation. I have also submitted a June 4, 2000, article from the Kansas City Star that further details the work of Richard and Annette for cancer patients in Kansas City. Mr. Speaker, on June 4 we celebrated the 15th anniversary of Cancer Survivors Day, an event that was started by the Blochs in Kansas City and is now celebrated in over 700 communities throughout the United States. June 4th also marks the 20th anniversary of the Cancer Hot Line, which has received more than 125,000 calls from newly diagnosed cancer patients since its inception in 1980. I encourage my colleagues to join me as I honor Richard and Annette Bloch and the volunteers of the R.A. Bloch Cancer Foundation for twenty years of steadfast commitment to cancer patients and survivors. [From the Kansas City Star, June 4, 2000] Cancer Survivors Celebrate Another Year of Life (By Oscar Avila) On the weekend of KC150, hundreds gathered Sunday at the Richard and Annette Bloch Cancer Survivors Park to mark other anniversaries. Cancer survivors marked personal milestones at the Celebration of Life rally. Survivors wore a button telling how many years they had survived. Participants and their families also marked the rally's 15th anniversary and the park's 10th year. But speakers and participants agreed that they don't need traditional milestones to celebrate victories over cancer. ``Every day is a celebration,'' said Maria Eades of Kansas City, North, who was diagnosed with breast cancer nine years ago. ``I wake up every morning and say, `Thank you, God, for another day.' '' Jason Oldham, a television reporter who is receiving treatment for a brain tumor, said, ``Every day is a good day.'' The Blochs created the park at 47th Street and Roanoke Parkway to offer support for cancer patients and to promote awareness of the disease. Because of the family's efforts, the first Sunday in June is now celebrated throughout the country as National Cancer Survivors Day. The park's walkway was lined with booths manned by people from cancer support groups, hospitals and research institutions. Participants reunited with friends and introduced themselves to new ones. Several participants said they are convinced that this sort of emotional support can give their health a boost. Others hoped awareness of early detection and treatment would help prevent future cancer cases. ``If only one life can be saved by coming to this park and coming to this rally, then all of this is worthwhile,'' Annette Bloch said. Guest speaker Buck O'Neil, a former player and manager with the Kansas City Monarchs of the Negro Leagues, reminded the crowd that not everyone survives the disease. O'Neil lost his wife, Ora, to cancer in 1997. O'Neil's words, however, were in line with the rally's hopeful tone. He said his wife's struggle brought the two closer. Other speakers also shared promising news. The Blochs recently finished their 15th survivors park, in Jacksonville, Fla. And participants also hailed last week's announcement that Health Midwest and St. Luke's-Shawnee Mission Health System would open a comprehensive cancer center. O'Neil said survivors should view the future with hope, not fear. ``You've just begun,'' he said. ``God gave you another chance. That's what he did. Use it. Use it.''

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, tomorrow, the leadership of this House will ask us to support an estate tax cut that benefits fewer than two percent of Americans. You might ask--how much will it cost to give a tax break to this tiny fraction of Americans? The answer is $104 billion over ten years, and an explosion of $50 billion per year after that. Today, the leadership of this House gives us the choice between special education children and our neediest children receiving Title I assistance, the children of the armed services, families who need child care and college students who need Pell Grants. Why must we rob Peter to pay Paul? Why do we have to choose today between our children with special needs and Ryan White AIDS funding? Or the Centers for Disease Control? Or mental health block grants? Or after-school funding? Because the leadership of this House would prefer to spend $104 billion giving tax cuts to the estates of the wealthiest one of every 1,000 people who die. But what about special education? The bill in front of us includes $6.6 billion in funding for special education, $514 million over last year's funding but far short of the $16 billion-plus we need to fulfill the longstanding federal commitment to our most vulnerable children. This $104 billion tax cut could fully fund the federal government's share of special education costs for six and a half years. This seems strange, because today we in the House will vote again and again to add needed money to special education, but our only choice is to divert it from other programs that benefit people who don't have K Street lobbyists--our kids. Mr. Chairman, I unequivocally support increasing funding for special education--I have supported it again and again on the floor of this House. In fact, I cosponsored my colleague Mr. Vitter's bill that would fully fund special education in two years. But it is clear to me, as it should be clear to the American people, that funding special education is unfortunately not the real priority of the leadership of this House.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say today that this is not a Democratic idea, this is not a Republican idea, this is an idea that is good for the American people, and this should be the law in our country, and that is full disclosure. As the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) pointed out, we are not here to try to abuse anybody; we are just asking for an opportunity for an up or down vote on this proposition of full disclosure. The people in this country are cynical about our form of government, about our electoral laws, because they see scandal after scandal about campaign finance fund raising. We can get people enthused about our government again, we can get people excited about the opportunity to participate in our democracy if we will only go with this proposition of full disclosure and tell the people in this country who is trying to influence their votes so, again, they can make an informed decision when they cast their ballot.

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill to repeal the tax. This is truly bipartisan and should be bipartisan. But at the same time, I rise in support of what should again be a bipartisan effort to support the motion to recommitment. 527s would not get the benefit of the tax repeal unless they disclose under the language of the recommittal motion. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) and I, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) is the person who proposed this 527 recommittal language, we are on each other's bills, have similar bills. Earlier this week, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) of the NRCC signed on my bill. Just yesterday, he removed his name from the bill. I was overjoyed when he signed on, because I thought this at last is an effort, an attempt, to move on a bipartisan basis, by Republicans and Democrats, on what should be a nonpartisan issue, and that is full disclosure. I can understand, I can understand truly people having honest differences of opinion about limitations on contributions. But I have heard from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle over and over, we may have differences about limitations, but everybody agrees with full disclosure. Well, now we have a chance for full disclosure, and now is the time to put one's vote where one's mouth is. It is that important to the American people, because, frankly, secrecy threatens democracy. Secrecy in government threatens our system of government and electoral process. We can overcome this secrecy by opening up these records, by full disclosure, and telling the people in this country who is trying to influence Federal elections. At the very bottom line, the people of this country deserve to know who is trying to influence their votes, so when they make an informed decision, when they make a decision to vote, they can make an informed decision and cast an informed vote. I think it is that vital that we act on a nonpartisan basis, and I invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) to support this motion to recommit for full disclosure.