Dennis Moore

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to recommit and in support of the base bill. This motion to recommit would add to the pending bill language requiring full disclosure by 527 organizations, these 527 groups that collect secret money and never disclose who gave or how much they gave. Our system of government is based on openness, disclosure, and accountability. Our system of government is threatened by secret money. Nondisclosure allows special interest groups with unlimited funds to bid for seats in Congress and to buy seats in Congress. A patriot from Arizona who ran for President of United States this year is a champion and a strong supporter of full disclosure. This should not be a partisan issue. People on both sides of the aisle should come to the support of this kind of responsive campaign finance reform. Mr. Speaker, we owe this to the American people.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4444, legislation to grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. The United States Trade Representative's agreement with China gives us a unique and historic opportunity to challenge old assumptions and establish new goals with respect to China. The Administration, in November, laid its bet on improving economic relations with China as the best way to ensure that this huge and growing power will become a constructive member of the world community. Today, it is up to Congress to affirm this deal to make these opportunities a reality. Despite our disappointments with China's internal policies, this is not a time to withdraw and abandon all dealings with China, particularly those that are clearly in our own interest to pursue. The deal the U.S. Trade Representative made with China represents a series of major concessions by the Chinese to accomplish a goal--Chinese membership in the WTO--that is also clearly in our national interests. This deal is a classic ``win-win'' proposition for the United States. While China will benefit from expanded trade and investment, this deal is composed of a series of unilateral concessions by China that reduce most of its tariffs, open the markets most attractive to U.S. goods and services, and commit China to international rules of commercial behavior and extensive monitoring of its compliance. Granting China PNTR would result in an opening of markets for American farmers, bankers, insurers, and manufacturers of microchips, chemicals, cars, computers, and software, who will reap benefits from a whole new level of access to what is potentially the world's largest consumer market. To fully realize the benefits of trade, however, requires more than agreements to reduce barriers. Sustaining support for the trading system also requires that the rules under which countries engage in trade are credible and equitable. The rules should ensure that governments play fair--that they not seek advantage for favored interests by subsidizing their producers or passing regulations that unnecessarily distort international trade. Fairness also requires that the gains from trade are shared widely and do not come at the expense of core labor and human rights standards. Mr. Speaker, the bill before Congress today's bill will make these larger goals possible. Beyond the market-opening provisions in H.R. 4444, this bill also contains thoughtful provisions developed by Representatives Levin and Bereuter that will establish mechanisms to monitor human rights in China, to report on labor market issues, and to encourage the development of rule of law and democracy-building in China. Granting China permanent PNTR would also mean the beginning of a long-term transition from a state-controlled economy toward a free market that will make these larger goals possible. Indeed, China is not only agreeing to import more American products, they are agreeing to import one of democracy's most cherished values--economic and social freedom. The only thing the United States would do in return is grant China the same permanent ``normal trade relations'' status afforded to all WTO members, which has been granted on an annual basis for the past 19 years. Granting PNTR to China is not a ``blessing'' of their past and current behavior. Rather, it is a commitment by China to change its behavior to become a responsible global citizen. This deal would impose on China a clear set of rules for business whereby the United States will benefit from China's verifiable and enforceable commitment to play by the world's rules. This deal will allow the United States to engage this emerging power in well-defined and civilized manner, rather than isolating it and strengthening the claims of its militarists that the America is an enemy. And this deal will open Chinese markets to U.S. products and services, which I hope will make the global economic pie bigger, so everyone gets a bigger piece.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3709, the Internet Nondiscrimination Act, which would impose a new five year moratorium on the ability of our state and local governments to collect sales taxes on commercial Internet transactions. Instead, I will be supporting the Istook amendment, which will limit this new moratorium to two years. The growth of e-commerce has presented policy makers with a host of complex new issues over the last few years. One of the largest challenges, however, is not a new issue, but an age-old problem-- taxation. Some argue that online retail transactions should remain exempt from tax collections due to problems with defining points-of-sale in the cyber marketplace. Additionally, opponents of taxing Internet sales argue that requiring taxation will stifle growth, creativity, and innovation in this new industry. On the other hand, state and local officials view the Internet as a tide that will erode local and regional tax bases with devastating consequences to traditional brick- and-mortar retailers as well as critical state and local government functions. To come to grips with this problem and these competing points-of- view, in 1998, Congress passed the Internet Tax Freedom Act that prohibited any new state, local, or federal taxes on electronic commerce until October 2001. In addition, it created a 19-member Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce to study the Internet taxation issue and report its recommendations to Congress. The Advisory Commission issued no recommendations, because of a lack of consensus on this issue. But, despite this fact, Congress is set today to vote on a bill that would extend the current moratorium for an additional five years, even though the current moratorium does not expire until October 1, 2001--a full 17 months from now. Congress should take this 17 month opportunity to hold public hearings on this issue, rather than rushing to the floor a contentious and politically motivated bill that pits traditional business against e-business. While almost everyone agrees that there should be no new taxes or fees on Internet services or access, there is little consensus on allowing state and local governments to collect sales taxes on remote electronic commerce transactions. The distinction between these two forms of taxation is subtle, but critical. Taxing Internet services and access would surely stifle the growth and innovation of this emerging industry. Taxing remote sales transactions, however, will not restrict this growth; rather it will ensure that all business entities--whether located on Main Street or Cyber Street--will be able to equitably and fairly compete. Moreover, allowing state and local governments to collect sales taxes on remote transactions will ensure that critical state and local services such as education and public safety will continue to be adequately funded and controlled at the state and local level where they belong. Mr. Chairman, this is why 34 of our nation's governors, Republican and Democrat, including Governor Bill Graves of Kansas, oppose extending this moratorium. As well, almost every municipal and county government in my district has passed resolutions opposing legislation like H.R. 3709 that erode their taxing authority. I have included one such resolution for the Record. I am supporting the Istook amendment that provides a two year extension of the moratorium because I believe that Congress, our states and our municipalities need time to develop a fair, simple and equitable system that is guided by the following principles: Fairness: Any solution should apply not only to Internet transactions, but to all remote transactions so as not to unfairly discriminate against e-commerce transactions. But we must also recognize that not taxing remote transactions, including e-commerce, unfairly discriminates against traditional face-to-face transactions. Simplicity: The solution should not be difficult for the digital economy to apply or for local and state governments to administer. Limited Scope: Sales should be taxed in order to provide a level of fairness to traditional brick-and-mortar businesses, but the use of the Internet itself should not. In other words, Congress should not tax data transmission, network services, or anything else that would amount to a tax on the medium itself. Mr. Chairman, the advent of e-commerce should not be viewed as either a threat or potential windfall for state and local governments. Assessing taxes on Internet sales should, all else being equal, have no effect on state and local tax revenue. What is lost as a result of decreasing face-to-face sales should be offset by gains from increasing online sales. Indeed, as a matter of fairness and fiscal responsibility, remote sales should not be beyond the scope of state and local tax jurisdictions. Further, those state and local jurisdictions should not have to cede their independent authority to a federally mandated flat sales tax system. The ultimate solution should use the same tools that enable e-commerce to construct an easy-to-use mechanism for businesses, consumers, and governments alike to operate in the digital economy--a software based solution that is able to identify and levy the appropriate level of sales tax based on the location of the buyer. This is a solution that is fair, simple, and limited in scope. February 28, 2000. Hon. Dennis Moore, U.S. Representative, 3rd Congressional District, Washington,

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that will provide an overtime exemption for emergency medical technicians (EMTs) from section 7(k) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This exemption is already provided for fire protection and law enforcement personnel. Currently, EMTs are asked to work the same hours as fire protection or law enforcement personnel, but state and local governments are required to pay these employees overtime for any hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a work-week. The overtime costs are quite expensive for state and local governments and interfere with their ability to manage their employees in emergency situations. Last year, legislation was passed that extended the overtime exemption to emergency medical technicians who work in fire departments. This bill, however, did not include a significant number of county, city and other public sector employees who provide emergency medical services. For example, in Kansas the two largest public sector emergency medical service agencies are county agencies that function separately from fire departments and therefore are not covered by the recent legislation. Despite this separation, the duties for the EMTs and fire protection personnel in these areas are virtually identical. They are frequently required to work long hours in certain situations and they are often on-call; therefore, there should be no difference in the treatment of EMTs under the FLSA. This legislation will clarify the overtime exemption to include paramedics, emergency medical technicians, rescue workers, and ambulance personnel. It will provide flexibility to emergency managers by allowing them to schedule their employees based on need instead of being restricted by state and local budget constraints. I was asked to introduce this legislation by county officials from Johnson County, Kansas. I have included at the conclusion of this statement a letter of support from the Kansas State Council of Fire Fighters. This proposal also has the endorsement and full support of the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM). Mr. Speaker, this legislation will enable emergency managers to offer our communities the best public safety services, will lead to public accountability, and will save our state and local governments millions of dollars nationwide, and I urge my colleagues to support it. International Association of Fire Fighters Local 64, Kansas City, KS, May 3, 2000. Congressman Dennis Moore, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Moore: IAFF Local 64 fire fighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians would like to ask you for your support for the Fair Labor Standards Act bill as it relates to emergency medical technicians. Thank you for your assistance on this bill. Sincerely yours, Robert S. Wing, President, IAFF Local 64. William P. Young, Secretary-Treasurer, IAFF Local 64.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, due to the failure of my pager to operate properly, I inadvertently was absent from three rollcall votes on May 2, 2000. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the following three roll calls: Rollcall No. 133: H. Con. Res. 295, regarding human rights and oppression in Vietnam; rollcall No. 134: H. Con. Res. 304, condemning Belarus; rollcall No. 135: requiring continued Endangered Species Act reports.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, many Americans have lost faith in our political system. Routinely, half of those eligible to vote don't. People feel our political system is at best irrelevant, and at worst shot full of corruption. Our country is better than that and deserves congressional leadership that takes responsibility for finding solutions to this problem. Last September the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed Shays-Meehan, which would have drastically reformed the campaign finance system. It would have gotten rid of soft money and severely limited independent expenditures, but similar efforts died in the Senate due to the actions of a very small minority. Though Shays-Meehan remains a necessary reform, a new type of political organization threatens the integrity of our electoral process. Known as ``527s,'' and named after the provision of the tax law under which they are created, these organizations contend they can accept unlimited funds and never disclose the names of donors, the amount of contributions, or how the money is spent. This is possible because while these groups qualify as political committees under the tax code, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). These organizations have caught the eye of many observers, not the least of which is the Joint Committee on Taxation, which made note in a recent report of this disturbing trend in nonprofit disclosure. When I was running for Congress, people told he how fed up they were with ``the system.'' Though the term meant different things to different people, for most it was campaign finance laws that allow precisely this type of anonymous political activity. The consequences are a public cynicism and apathy that eat away at voter participation, and cause citizens to tune out discussions of very serious issues. It has turned a whole generation of young people away from politics as a means of government and social change. Simply put, the current campaign finance law alienates voters. I am hoping new legislation I've written will not only begin to restore the public trust, but will also take congressional seats off the 527 auction block. The Campaign Integrity Act of 2000 (H.R. 3688), cosponsored by 51 of my House colleagues--including my good friend, Lloyd Doggett--would require 527s to meet the disclosure and reporting requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act. This proposal would rewrite the Internal Revenue Code's section 527 definition of ``political organizations'' to require public disclosure of the name, address, and other identifying information about the group; a summary of cash on hand and disbursements; an itemized list of contributors, showing name, address, occupation, employer, and amount of contribution; other receipts; and disbursements (including independent expenditures, operating expenditures, refunds, and transfers). Violations would have stiff consequences--nothing less than loss of the organization's tax-exempt status would be at stake. This bill will not cure the ills of the campaign finance system, but instead represents two very important and necessary goals. First of all, this act closes the 527 loophole and re-establishes in this country the principle that campaigns will be transparent and subject to scrutiny. Secondly, this bill represents a reasonable political compromise that, in the absence of more comprehensive reform, gives Congress the opportunity to make upcoming elections more open, fair, and honest. To those who cling to ``free speech'' as an argument against reform: This legislation would not impose limitations on contributions to 527s, and therefore will not in any way interfere with the First Amendment. It would simply require full disclosure, forcing those who wish to exercise this type of expression to show their face, just like everyone else has to do. It is high time Congress shine light on 527s and tell special interest groups that the American people are our special interest. For the sake of our democracy, Congress needs to end the era of anonymous attack ads. Congress can--and should--rise to meet that challenge.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that today the House of Representatives is rising above partisan politics to address a matter of utmost importance. Be it urban, rural, small or large, every school district in our country is suffering because the federal government had not made good on its 1975 commitment to fund 40 percent of education costs for special needs students. I commend Chairman Goodling for bringing this bill to the floor, and for his commitment to fully fund IDEA by 2010. Fulfilling our commitment to our special needs students is absolutely the right thing to do. I would like, however, to challenge this House today. I'll take this bill and raise you one. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 4090, a bill introduced by Representative Vitter of Louisiana. This bill would fulfill our commitment to our schools and our children in two years. I know this is an ambitious goal, but I think 25 years of unfulfilled promises is long enough. So does Representative Vitter. I am one of a group of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle who think our government should step up to the plate and make good on its promise. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill today. And tomorrow we should come to this floor and pass H.R. 4090, the IDEA Keeping our Commitment Act. It's the right thing to do and it's about time.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, many fingers have been pointed today and much has been said about what this side believes and what that side believes. I am here to tell you what I believe. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 2149, the Late-term Abortion Restriction Act. Roe v. Wade and successor decisions are the law of the land and this bill is consistent with the law. The bill would ban all late-term abortions, regardless of the type of procedure used, with exceptions only to protect the life of the mother and to avert serious adverse health consequences. Because it bans abortions based upon viability of the fetus rather than the type of procedure used, it will prevent late-term abortions in a morally and constitutionally sound manner. I considered many factors in deciding to cosponsor H.R. 2149. I am a believer in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that our rights include the right to make our own medical decisions. No one can say ending a pregnancy is an easy decision, nor can anyone claim the idea of late term abortions for only convenience is anything but ethically wrong. This bill strikes a balance and adheres to the Court's requirement that any law protect the life and health of the pregnant woman. H.R. 2149 meets all these constitutional requirements. This bill should be law because it addresses what the American people truly want to stop--the termination of a viable fetus during late stages of pregnancy, unless there is a serious threat to life or health of the mother. The President has said he would sign H.R. 2149 into law. If opponents of abortion truly want to stop late-term abortions, this is the bill that will do it. Today, I will vote against H.R. 3660, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. I urge my colleagues to consider H.R. 2149 as an effective and constitutionally sound solution to this deeply personal issue.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the conservative Blue Dog substitute to H. Con. Res. 290, the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution, because it establishes a responsible fiscal framework for Congress to maintain a true balanced budget and to eliminate our national debt. The majority's budget resolution calls for $596.5 billion in discretionary spending for fiscal year 2001, which is 2 percent more than the current levels. This budget protects funding for some education programs, veterans, and the NIH; however, it does so at the expense of other domestic priorities--most of which would be cut by the majority, on average, by nearly 10 percent. While I commend the majority's discipline on setting spending levels and prioritizing funding for some of our most pressing domestic needs, I am disappointed about the insistence on passing huge tax cuts that jeopardize our efforts to save Social Security, protect Medicare, and pay down the national debt. Additionally, the majority plan sets no funding aside to extend the solvency of Social Security one single day. While the majority plan creates a ``reserve'' that could be used to fund Medicare reform or provide a prescription drug benefit; however, how these funds might be used are undefined. Finally, the majority plan provides little, if any room for debt reduction; they allow for a $150 billion tax cut that could explode to almost $250 billion if the majority uses its $40 billion Medicare ``reserve'' for tax cuts and the additional $50 billion reserve for tax cuts. Worse, if both reserves are used, all on- budget surpluses would be wiped out and there would be a $7 billion on- budget deficit in fiscal year 2004. The majority's budget resolution clearly guides us down the wrong fiscal path by proposing risky tax cuts that will return us to an era of fiscal deficits and exploding national debt, without extending Social Security solvency, protecting Medicare, or reducing any of our national debt. Similarly, the Democratic alternative does not do enough to focus on this nation's most pressing needs. While this substitute preserves Social Security and Medicare for the long run, begins paying down our national debt and provides targeted tax relief, it forsakes immediate attention to these needs by unnecessarily increasing discretionary spending levels by calling for $19.2 billion in spending increases for fiscal year 2001 and $118.3 billion more in discretionary budget authority than the majority's plan over five years. Like the majority budget resolution, the Democratic alternative directs our fiscal resources away from Social Security away from Medicare and away from debt reduction. The conservative Blue Dog budget, by contrast, sets out responsible budgetary policy that achieves and maintains a true balanced budget raiding Social Security. The Blue Dog budget reserve half of the on- budget surpluses for debt reduction rather than spending it on tax cuts or new programs. This will allow the budget to remain balanced without dipping into the Social Security trust fund even if optimistic budget projections don't materialize. The Blue Dog budget divides the remaining half on the on-budge surplus between tax reduction and shoring up our nation's commitment to our other domestic priorities-- education, veterans, health care and a strong national defense. Mr. Chairman, the conservative Blue Dog budget, by prudently and responsibly allocating our resources, will allow this nation to maintain our unprecedented economic growth. This budget gets back to basic and common sense principles that most American families follow in their daily lives: Paying our debts; don't spend money we don't have; and provide for basic needs. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the conservative Blue Dog budget substitute.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) says that we should get with the real facts and recognize the real facts. I say to the gentleman and all those in this chamber, these are the real facts. A 6-year-old little girl is dead and that is a real fact, and she was shot dead by a 6-year-old little classmate who was holding an inanimate object, a gun. This is a trigger lock. And had this trigger lock been in place, that 6-year-old little girl would still be alive because the gun could not have discharged. In my district, in June of last year, a 6-year-old boy picked up a rifle leaning against the wall in his apartment when his mom went next door and shot his 4-year-old brother in the ear, fortunately not the head but the ear. That little boy would not have been injured and that gun could not have discharged had there been a trigger lock in place. We need to start getting with the real facts and recognizing the realities in this country. I do not want to take anybody's gun away that is not a convicted felon, a mentally ill person, or a child without adult supervision. But, as a prosecutor for 12 years, I have seen firsthand gun violence. I believe in the Second Amendment. I own a firearm myself. But adults who are going to exercise the right to own a firearm should do it responsibly.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3832, the Small Business Tax Fairness Act of 2000. I have long been a supporter of targeted tax relief that will help sustain the growth of economy, support the continued health of our nation's small businesses, restore and rehabilitate our rural and urban communities, and provide incentives for individuals to save for their retirement. While I would have included provisions that differ somewhat from this version had I drafted this bill myself, I strongly support the following provisions that will benefit small businesses and the self employed, low-income and rural areas, and the working poor and middle- income America: 100 Percent Deductibility of Health Insurance Costs: This provision will level the playing field for the self-employed and reduce the burden on the over 44 million Americans currently without health insurance. Small Business Expensing: A majority of our nation's small businesses exceed the current small-business expensing limits in only three months. This bill would raise the threshold from $20,000 to $30,000, which will free up capital resources for additional investment in small businesses to expand and create new jobs. Installment Sales Tax Correction: Last year, Congress passed and the President signed into law a bill that provided much needed tax relief to individuals and businesses through extending certain tax credits. Unfortunately, this law contained a provision, which will be repealed by H.R. 3832, that prohibits small businesses that use accrual accounting methods from selling assets in installments. Community Development and Low-Income Assistance: The measure also provides for the creation of ``renewal communities'' to assist low- income and rural areas with tax relief that will help spur economic growth. Additionally, the bill includes an expansion of the low-income housing tax credit to help build and support more low-income housing for the working poor. Enhancing Retirement Security: In an increasingly mobile workforce, it is critically important that we allow for shorter vesting schedules and increased portability of retirement benefits between jobs. This bill does that. By removing artificial and administrative barriers, these provisions will make it significantly easier for working Americans to save and invest for their retirement. Other provisions in this bill will increase limits on employer-sponsored retirement plans, increase pension opportunities for women who have historically been left out of retirement savings plans, and provide new and expanded opportunities for all Americans to save and invest for their future. This bill also reduces the estate tax. While I support 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 do not advocate a full repeal of the estate tax. I therefore object to the provision in Section 302 of the bill that expresses the sense of Congress that the estate tax should be repealed. Simply, a full repeal of the estate tax will have budget implications that this country simply cannot afford. With over $200 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. Mr. Speaker, this year the House of Representatives has already passed a $182 billion marriage penalty relief bill. I supported that measure because that bill provided needed tax relief for married couples by reducing the marriage tax penalty while strengthening the financial resources of the American family and fostering economic prosperity into the 21st century. Today, we will likely pass a $122 billion tax relief bill. That brings the total tax relief approved by the House to date up to $304 billion or a little more than 30 percent of the projected on budget surplus of $930 billion. I warned the House when we passed the marriage penalty tax and I will warn the House again today: This Congress has yet to act on a budget resolution and, as such, has no knowledge about how this legislation will fit into our other collective commitments to extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare and reduce our 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 the ability to retire our $5.6 trillion national debt. We can, we should, and we have cut taxes. I have supported these bills because each has had a relatively modest cost when considered in isolation; and I will support one more bill--clean legislation that will increase the deductible contribution limits to Individual Retirement Accounts. Today, the Wall Street Journal reported that the majority is contemplating bringing a bill to the floor that would increase IRA limits to $5000. I have such a bill and I urge the leadership in both parties to consider H.R. 802 because it will help increase national savings and encourage individual private retirement accounts to supplement Social Security benefits. 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. These tax cuts, however, must be made in the context of a fiscally responsible budget that eliminated the publicly held debt, strengthens Social Security and Medicare, and addresses our other other priorities. While I will be supporting this legislation, I will also be redoubling my efforts to push fiscal responsibility--to call for a plan I voted for last summer that would reserve 50 percent of on-budget surpluses for debt reduction, 25 percent for securing Social Security and protecting Medicare, and 25 percent for tax cuts. We have exceeded that threshold and I urge the leadership to recognize that enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to move forward in a bipartisan manner to address these other important issues and place all of our priorities in context of a responsible budget resolution.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000. Under current law, over 8,000 Kansas seniors lose some or all of their Social Security benefits due to the Social Security earnings limit because they choose to continue to work. Seniors aged 65 to 69 have $1 of their benefits reduced for every $3 they earn over the current earnings limit of $17,000. Simply, current law penalizes seniors for working. I do not believe it is fair to punish those seniors who want or need to participate in the workforce by having this disincentive to work. Eliminating the earnings limit is not only fair for working seniors, it will improve the quality and efficiency of Social Security since the program will be easier and less expensive to administer. Furthermore, repealing the Social Security earnings limit is fiscally responsible. While the bill would increase Social Security spending by $22.7 billion over the next 10 years, the resulting lower long-term benefit payments will more than offset the costs. Mr. Speaker, by allowing seniors who want to work to retain their benefits, Congress will take an important step towards strengthening retirement security for all seniors. This step, however, should not be our last. I urge my colleagues to begin working with me, in the same bipartisan manner that we worked on today's bill, to put Social Security on a firm financial footing for future generations. We need to build on today's success by dedicating a substantial portion of the budget surplus to pay down debt and strengthen Social Security and Medicare. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5 and to join me in the larger challenge of strengthening Social Security and Medicare for our seniors and for generations of future retirees.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss H.R. 6, the Marriage Penalty Relief Act of 2000. The bill is the right thing to do for many reasons and I will support its passage. This bill will provide needed tax relief for married couples by reducing the marriage tax penalty while strengthening the financial resources of the American family and fostering economic prosperity into the 21st century. Currently, forty-two million married taxpayers, including almost 67,000 families in my district, will gain from the standard deduction increases in this bill; the average tax cut for married couples provided by the bill would be nearly $500 per year--money that will go a long way toward paying for food, housing, and clothes for their children; and the bill will significantly help low- and middle-income working families. I will be voting for this legislation; however, I will be doing so with strong reservations. I have deep concerns that this Congress has yet to act on a budget resolution this year and, as such, we have no knowledge how this legislation will fit into our other collective commitments to extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare and reduce our national debt. Congress should first pass a budget resolution that puts into place a framework to strengthen Social Security and Medicare and pay down the debt before enacting a big tax cut--in stages or all at once--that spends the surplus. That is why I will also be voting for the substitute bill and the motion to recommit. The substitute not only takes a large step toward eliminating the marriage penalty, it does so after we have developed a budget that certifies the solvency of Social Security and Medicare and after we have developed a budget that provides for debt repayment by the year 2013. The motion to recommit provides that we first establish a budget that ensures all of our priorities are met--solvency of Social Security and Medicare, repayment of our national debt, and tax cuts. 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 the ability to retire this debt. Although each of these bills will have a relatively modest cost when considered in isolation, the total costs of these bills will be nearly as much as the vetoed tax bill, and could even be more expensive. I caution my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, that this marriage penalty bill reported by the Ways and Means Committee will consume most, if not all, of the resources that will be available for tax cuts without jeopardizing our commitment to paying down the debt and strengthening Social Security and Medicare. I caution my colleagues that if this marriage penalty bill is enacted, it may be difficult to enact additional tax cuts that Congress considers--estate tax relief, tax credits for health insurance and education, and Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) reform. We can and should cut taxes. But any tax cut must be in the context of a fiscally responsible budget that eliminates the publicly held debt, strengthens Social Security and Medicare, and addresses our other priorities. While I will be supporting this legislation, I am doing so to move the process forward and to correct a wrong in our tax code. I hope this Congress considers carefully this bill's cost in the larger context of the federal budget and I hope the Senate will take on this important issue in a responsible manner that places these other priorities in context.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, it is time we put our financial House in order. We have the opportunity for the first time in a generation to do the right thing for ourselves, for our country, and for future generations. We must begin to conduct our financial affairs in this country the way families across America have for years and years. For years they have observed three very simple but unspoken rules: Number one, do not spend more money than is made. Number two, pay off debts. And number three, take care of basics. The basics for our country, Mr. Speaker, are Social Security, Medicare, national defense, and a number of other things that we could all talk about here. Our willingness to do the right thing now will pay tremendous dividends to us now and to our children and grandchildren in the future in terms of lower interest rates, and in terms of $243 billion that we paid in 1998 as interest on the national debt. If we do this now, Mr. Speaker, we will do a tremendous thing for our country, and I ask all of my colleagues in Congress to join with me in an effort to begin the debate to pay down our national debt.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote against the omnibus appropriations bill that is before us today. No respectable business would operate this way--and neither should our government. I did not come to Congress to engage in business as usual. The people of Kansas' Third District expect more of us. As Congress has done for too many years, today it will be voting on a bill estimated at 2,000 pages, which no one in this chamber has read, or even had the opportunity to give a cursory review. We are asked to vote based upon sketchy summaries of a huge piece of legislation that was filed as a conference report at 3:00 a.m. this morning. Is it too much to ask that we have 24 hours to review and consider a $395 billion appropriations bill before voting? This bill has not even been printed or placed on- line for our review or for the public's examination. This is wrong and none of us should be a party to it. But, more bothersome is that while the bill contains many programs which I have fought for and for which I would vote under normal circumstances, the bill is a lie and a cruel hoax on the American people. The majority claims they have not spent Social Security funds. Just the opposite is true. There are many things in this bill which I support: increased funding to reduce public school class sizes by hiring qualified teachers and funding teacher training; funding for the National Institutes of Health; payment of the United States' outstanding debt to the United Nations; increased funding for the hiring of new community police officers; additional funds to preserve and acquire open spaces and ecologically important lands; funds to help implement the Wye River Accord between Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan; and funds for development in the world's poorest nations and supports an IMF proposal to revalue some of its gold reserves to finance debt forgiveness. There also, however, are a number of provisions in this bill which I oppose: a cut of $100 million in veterans' benefits; payment of the United Nations arrears is linked to unwarranted restrictions on international family planning funding; funding for the Army's School of the Americas, which has a dismal record of training personnel supporting past military dictatorships in Latin America, who have been engaged in gross human rights violations; and most importantly, this package has not been scored by the Congressional Budget Office; despite the majority's unsupported claims to the contrary, we really do not know what the ultimate impact will be upon Social Security funds. Indeed, of the three major offsets provided in this conference report, only one actually reduces expenditures. The other two--expediting transfers from the Treasury to the Federal Reserve and delaying payments to our military personnel--are accounting gimmicks which start us in a hole in next year's budget process. This is not fiscally responsible and it does not protect Social Security. Additionally, other non-appropriations measures have been added to this omnibus package at the last possible minute. I would gladly support several of these bills if I had the opportunity to vote on them individually, under regular order. These bills include measures to: increase Medicare payments to hospitals, nursing homes, home health care agencies and other health care providers, providing some financial relief from the Medicare cuts imposed by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997; allow satellite carriers to transmit the signals of local broadcast stations back to subscribers in the same local market and allows satellite subscribers scheduled to lose their distant signals at the end of the year to continue receiving them for five years; and preserve local, low power television stations when the broadcast industry upgrades to digital service. Under the rules of the House, Congress is supposed to consider thirteen appropriations bills for each fiscal year. Under normal procedures, those bills should come before the House 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. I have only been a member of this body for eleven months, but I understand that the rules and procedures of the House 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 I am told is estimated at 2,000 pages, carries an overall price tag of $395 billion in fiscal year 2000 appropriations, and countless other provisions, whose consequences we cannot possibly know at this time. I will vote against this package today and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my profound disappointment with the legislative process in this chamber and the bill that is before us today. In the House of Representatives, we have one primary duty--to pass the thirteen annual appropriations bills. Today, one day before the scheduled adjournment date, we have not yet completed our work on five of the thirteen. To add insult to injury, we are being asked to vote on a ``pre-conferenced'' Labor-HHS-Education spending bill that this House has not the opportunity to debate and amend under regular order. To say that the bill before us today misrepresents national priorities would be false--in fact, the bill before us today represents no priorities. Perhaps, if the House had an opportunity to address this bill in the normal fashion--with debate, amendment and compromise--the House could have come to consensus as it has for the past 105 Congresses. Of course the federal government can cut 1% of fat--but to blindly cut that 1% across the board is lazy and irresponsible. Mr. Speaker, the priorities of the Kansans that I represent are ill- served by this ham-handed approach to legislating that is before us today. This bill would block grant the class-size reduction initiative enacted by Congress last year, and deny $200 million needed to hire 8,000 new teachers. A 1% across-the-board reduction would cut benefits for 71,000 needy individuals benefiting from supplemental nutrition program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). It would result in 1.3 million fewer ``Meals on Wheels'' delivered to shut-in seniors and 4,888 fewer low-income children being able to benefit from the highly successful Head Start program. I am voting against this bill today hoping that the House will go back to the drawing board and, like the Senate, set responsible spending levels that reflect our priorities as a nation.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 900, the conference report for the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. As a member of the Banking and Financial Services Committee, I supported this measure when it passed our committee on March 23 by a 51-8 margin. I supported this measure again, when it overwhelmingly passed the full House of Representatives on July 1, 1999, on a vote of 343-86. I would like to commend my colleagues in both the House and Senate who served on the conference committee. Through their hard work, we have before us today a well balanced and thoughtful conference report that, after over two decades of trying, finally reforms our antiquated, Depression-era financial services laws to benefit consumers, businesses and the economy. I supported the House Banking version because financial modernization is desperately needed to address changes that are currently taking place in the global marketplace. Today, America's financial services industry is the most effective and competitive in the world. The banking system and other associated financial services institutions are the oil that prime the pump to our economy. The industry's ability to adapt to the swift and vast structural and technological changes in the marketplace have accounted for the record bank profits and the largest peacetime expansion since World War II. These achievements of our financial services industry, however, are at risk--risk to both consumers and the system itself--if we continue to rely on ad hoc adaptations without establishing a meaningful and prudent framework in which this system, undergoing such rapid changes, can thrive and prosper. This conference report establishes such a responsible framework, with an eye allowing the industry to thrive and prosper, while providing the most progressive consumer protection safeguards ever enacted into law. Among the many benefits of this landmark legislation, three are critically important: S. 900 permits the creation of new financial holding companies, which can offer banking, insurance, securities, and other financial products. These new structures will allow American financial firms to take advantage of greater operating efficiencies and spur competition. This new competitive spirit will create better access to capital that will continue to promote our growing economy, greater choices, innovative services, and lower prices for consumers. Indeed, the efficiencies created with this bill are estimated to save consumers over $15 billion. S. 900 benefits our local communities by preserving and strengthening community investment. This conference report requires that banks have a good track record of community reinvestment as a condition for taking advantage of the bill's newly authorized business activities and, for the first time, requires that a bank's performance on community reinvestment be considered when it expands outside of traditional banking activities. In addition to these protections, this conference report creates a new program designed specifically to help small, low- income entrepreneurs start and expand their businesses in underserved areas. S. 900 provide important new consumer protections including mandatory prohibitions on coercive sales practices, disclosure of ATM fees, and for the first time, protections for Americans' financial privacy. These new standards are a significant improvement over current law, where no standards exist. The conference report requires financial institutions to notify consumers and provide them with the ability to opt-out of the disclosure of personal financial information to unaffiliated third parties; prohibits third parties from sharing or selling a consumer's personal financial information; provides strengthened and expanded regulatory authority to detect and enforce privacy violations; and prevents the preemption of stronger state consumer protection laws. Madam Speaker, this conference report represents a balanced compromise between the House and the Senate versions of financial services modernization. Congress has spent several decades considering many of the complicated and extremely important issues addressed in this compromise--a compromise that represents a landmark legislative achievement in modernizing our nation's financial services industries. It establishes a rational framework in which our financial services industries may offer a wide range of services that will benefit consumers. It creates, in most cases, prudential consumer safeguards. And, it levels the playing field in a manner that will allow our financial institutions to compete in the 21st Century. I congratulate and commend my colleagues in both the House and the Senate who served on the conference committee and urge swift passage of this report.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor two longtime residents of Overland Park, Kansas, Robert and Dorothy Hakenholz, who have dedicated their lives to God, country and family. Robert and Dorothy recently celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary with their two daughters and their families from Iowa and Oklahoma. Dorothy and Robert, or ``Bob'' as he is known to family and friends, were married on September 23rd, 1939, in Sioux City, Iowa. Bob began working for Standard Oil in 1934. The former Dorothy Lindberg worked outside the home as a telephone operator during the early years of their marriage. In 1944, Bob left his young family to serve on the U.S.S. LST 896 during World War II where he served as Motor Machinist's Mate, Third Class. Meanwhile, Dorothy kept up with her work at the telephone company and raised her young daughter Carol with the help of her mother. After surviving, with his shipmates, two typhoons near Okinawa, Bob was discharged at the end of the war. Happily reunited, Bob and Dorothy continued to raise Carol, and soon welcomed a second daughter, Janet, to the world. Bob's work with Standard oil eventually moved the family from Iowa to Overland Park in 1962 where he worked until his retirement in 1977. Both Bob and Dorothy proceeded to serve in retirement as community volunteers. Bob also worked as a manager of field personnel during the 1980 United States Census. Bob and Dorothy are proud grandparents of four grown grandchildren, continue to live in Overland Park, Kansas, and remain active members of Faith Lutheran Church in Prairie Village, Kansas. Bob also remains committed to working on his golf handicap. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Bob and Dorothy on a remarkable 60 years of marriage.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2561, the defense appropriations conference report, but with reservations. I voted for this conference report because I believe in a strong national defense and I support the men and women who risk their lives to defend our nation. I am, however, strongly opposed to the manner in which this conference report funds these important functions. I believe in a strong defense, not the budget gimmicks that the majority uses to hide the actual amount of spending in the bill. I voted in favor of a 4.8 percent pay increase for military personnel who risk their lives for this country, not an agreement that shifts spending of an estimated $10.5 billion our of fiscal year 2000 and pushes personnel payments into the next fiscal year. I voted in favor of our commitment to providing the strongest defense in the world, not delaying over $1.3 billion in payments to defense contractors. I voted in favor of new defense technologies that will save lives, not for projects like the F-22 that my colleague from California, the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee says, ``has become a burden on the rest of the military.'' Mr. Speaker, I am offended by the manner in which this Congress is proceeding with its fiscal duties. Shifting $10.5 billion of FY 2000 dollars to FY 2001, delaying contractor payments into the next fiscal year and declaring a $7.2 billion in ``emergency'' is not being fiscally responsible and it is not being honest with the American people about adherence to budget caps. On September 29th, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released a letter stating that Congress has already broken the budget caps and has already consumed over $18 billion of the Social Security surplus. Mr. Speaker, as we move forward in the appropriations process, I hope both parties will work together to preserve and protect Social Security and Medicare, while providing for our country's basic needs. I hope the leadership will choose to keep faith with Americans and stop resorting to these kinds of budget gimmicks, which only seek to deceive people about the federal budget.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2591, legislation introduced by my colleague from Kansas, Jerry Moran, that would designate the Wakefield, Kansas, post office as the William H. Avery Post Office. Bill Avery served the people of Kansas with distinction in several public offices. Born in Wakefield in 1911, he attended public schools and earned an A.B. at the University of Kansas in 1934. A farmer and stockman since 1935, he became director of the Wakefield Rural High School Board of Education in 1946 and was elected to the Kansas House of Representatives in 1950. While in the legislature, he served on the Legislative Coordinating Council. Bill Avery was elected to Congress five times, serving from 1955- 1965. In 1964, he was elected governor of Kansas, where he served for two years until his defeat for re-election by Robert Docking, who went on to be the only Kansan elected to the governorship four times. During his tenure as governor, Bill Avery tackled several complicated, controversial issues, including enactment of a school funding program which provided broader state support for elementary and high schools through increases in the sales, liquor, cigarette and income taxes, including establishment of state income tax withholding. He also presided over implementation of a school unification statute that closed many rural schools. After leaving the governorship, Bill Avery returned to Wakefield and became president of Real Petroleum Company. At age 88, he resides in Wakefield today. I am pleased to cosponsor this legislation with my colleagues from the Kansas congressional delegation and I am glad to take this opportunity to commend Bill Avery for his distinguished career of public service on behalf of his fellow Kansans. I urge my colleagues to support this timely and well-deserved measure.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that on October 7, 1999, the House of Representatives passed the long-overdue Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act (H.R. 2723) by such a large margin. I truly believe that H.R. 2723 is good, common-sense legislation that will protect the interests of patients in contracts with health insurers. I am attaching a letter signed by representatives of the Kansas Association of Osteopathic Medicine, the Kansas Dental Association, the Kansas Medical Society, the Kansas Pharmacists Association, the Kansas State Nurses Association, the National Association of Social Workers--Kansas Chapter and the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association expressing support for H.R. 2723. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 2723 and supported passage, although I was very disappointed that the Republican leadership did not allow Representatives Norwood and Dingell to offer an amendment to pay for provisions in the managed care bill. Their amendment would have provided $7 billion in offsets for revenue losses estimated to result from increased deductions for higher medical premiums. I fully expect the conferees to offset this cost to gain my support for the final bill, and I am encouraged that the President has said that he will not sign the final bill unless it is fully offset. On October 6, 1999, I opposed final passage of H.R. 2990, the so- called ``access'' bill. This bill was estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to cost $48.7 billion over 10 years with not offsets. Sponsors of H.R. 2990 claim that it will be paid for out of the projected budget surplus, which is based upon the assumption that Congress will abide by the spending caps enacted in the 1997 budget agreement. The Congressional Budget Office, however, has estimated that Congress has already voted to increase spending by at least $30 billion over the caps for fiscal year 2000, which will require tapping into the Social Security Trust Fund. I voted against H.R. 2990 because I made a commitment not to spend one penny of the Social Security surplus. Let me make one thing clear--I do not believe that legislation to protect patients and efforts to make health care more accessible are mutually exclusive. As a member of the Small Business Committee, I am working hard to expand health coverage to the 43 million Americans who lack it, since more than 60% of the uninsured have one thing in common--they are either self-employed, or their primary breadwinner is employed by a small business that cannot afford to provide health benefits. To this end, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1496, the Small Business Access and Choice for Entrepreneurs Act. This legislation would do two things: 1) Offer immediate 100% health insurance deductibility for the self- employed; and 2) strengthen and expand Association Health Plans (AHPs) for small business owners. AHPs would allow small businesses and the self-employed to join together to obtain the same economics of scale, purchasing clout, and administrative efficiencies from which large health insurance purchasers currently benefit. AHPs will give small employers the ability to design more affordable benefit options, offer workers more choices, and promote greater competition in the health insurance market. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to ensure adequate patient protections and access to health care for all Americans. Kansas State Nurses Association October 5, 1999. Congressman Dennis Moore, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Moore: On behalf of organizations concerned about health care in our state, we are writing to ask your support of the bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act (HR 2723) by Charlie Norwood and others. It is our understanding that this important legislation will be up for consideration the week of October 4. We ask that you support this legislation because it provides the best patient protection by addressing these important elements: Allows patients to obtain the medical care they need Protects nurses, physicians and other health care professionals who advocate for their patients Holds health care plans accountable by removing the ERISA preemption Has a strong external review component Determines ``medical necessity'' according to generally accepted standards of medical practice by a prudent physician Prohibits gag clauses and practices Provides accurate disclosure of costs and benefits Kansans, just like the majority of Americans, want strong patient protections from managed care. H.R. 2723 represents your best opportunity to provide these protections. Please don't vary from this approach. Thank you, Respectfully Submitted, Chip Wheelan, Kansas Association of Osteopathic Medicine. Kevin Robertson, Kansas Dental Association. Jerry Slaughter, Kansas Medical Society. Bob Williams, Kansas Pharmacists Association. Terri Roberts, Kansas State Nurses Association. Sky Westerlund, National Association of Social Workers, Kansas Chapter. Terry Humphrey, Kansas Trial Lawyers Association.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, during the 1996 election cycle a Virginia- based organization called Triad Management spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in my home state of Kansas, as well as in Oklahoma and Louisiana, among other states. The money was spent on sham issue ads of dubious accuracy. I am including in the Record with my statement a copy of a New York Times article that recounts Triad's activities in this regard. Rigorous debate is part of democracy in America, and free speech is a right and freedom that all of us cherish. When you and I stand up to exercise that right, not only to conduct the business of the people but also to run in partisan elections, we show our face. But there are those who enter the public debate anonymously, however, backed by funds, the source of which is unknown. Mr. Chairman, this type of activity has two effects on American voters. The first is to cause outrage--and rightly so. After all, how can one expect justice and fair play from a system that has the appearance of being up for sale? The second is apathy. Sadly, we know this to be true based upon recent voter turnout statistics. Average voters feel like they can't make a difference in our system of big bucks and anonymous contributions, and their response is to refuse to participate. Mr. Chairman, you and I have both seen this outrage and apathy. Isn't it time we do something about it? Triad is one of the many examples of this abuse of the system; abuses enactment of Shays-Meehan will end. By passing this bill, no one is telling the anonymous donors to Triad that they can't be a part of the public debate. Instead, it simply requires them to reveal themselves to the public and show their face, just like everyone else has to do. Mr. Chairman, passing H.R. 417 is the one step Congress can take that will most contribute to restoring the public's loss of confidence in our political process. People have an absolute right to know who is trying to influence their vote and the vote of their elected representatives. I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 417 immediately so we can shine the light of day on this problem. [From the New York Times] A Back Door for the Conservative Donor Consultant Used PAC's and Nonprofits to Offer Maximum Impact (By Leslie Wayne) Washington, May 21--When Floyd Coates, an Indiana businessman and one-time candidate for Congress, decided to make some big campaign donations in the last election, he wanted to be sure that the $100,000 or so he planned to give would end up supporting his brand of conservative, free- market, pro-military, anti-abortion candidates. ``I wanted to do all I could,'' Mr. Coates said. ``But I didn't want my money to go to the 5 to 10 percent of the Republican candidates who were too liberal, or to the 5 to 10 percent who didn't have a chance.'' So, for guidance, Mr. Coates turned to Triad Management Services, a Washington political consulting concern headed by a former fund-raiser for Oliver L. North. Tapping into a network of conservative donors across the country, Triad funneled their money through nonprofit groups and political action committees to support conservative candidates in important races. By finding donors and advising them where to put their money, Triad pumped more than $5 million into last- minute negative television, advertisements that benefited Republican candidates and, in some cases, swayed elections. A Democratic candidate for Congress in Kansas was described in an advertisement produced by Triad with money from conservative donors as supporting ``special preferences for gays and lesbians.'' She lost. A Democratic Congressional candidate in Montana lost his slim lead, and the election, after a Triad advertisement portrayed him as a wife-beater. In the hotly contested race for Bob Dole's Senate seat in Kansas, the Democratic challenger, who had been running neck- and-neck, lost after a last-minute $200,000 advertising blitz from Triad characterized her as a ``liberal'' from Massachusetts, the state she left 20 years ago. Few people, least of all the Congressional candidates under attack, knew where the money for these advertisements came from: a little-known group taking advantage of loopholes in campaign finance laws on behalf of Republican candidates. ``Triad played the role of an orchestra leader,'' said Bill Hogan of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit research group. ``They had an ocean of money, and where it comes from and where it goes doesn't have to be disclosed. These organizations skirt the very fine print of the Federal regulations. It's secret money, and the level of it is worse today than during Watergate.'' Working outside the confines of the Republican Party, Triad, a profit-making consulting group, came up with ways for conservative donors--including corporations, which are prohibited from giving directly to Congressional candidates-- to get money to tight races where conservative Republicans stood a chance of victory. The money was often channeled into television advertisements through nonprofit organizations-- including one headed by Lyn Nofziger, a former aide to President Ronald Reagan who was convicted of three felony ethics violations--in ways that make it impossible to trace the sources or the amounts of the donations. In a year in which one new loophole after another in campaign finance law was being exploited, Triad carved out a unique role as a middleman and showed how nonprofits could be used to steer money into Congressional races. Triad did not collect campaign dollars itself. Rather, it advised individual donors on which candidates and political action committees to support. And it found donors, whose names were never disclosed, to contribute to nonprofit groups that used Triad to design attack advertisements. In exchange for this, Triad collected a fee from the individual donors and took a portion of the money raised for the television advertisements. While there are many Washington consulting firms that advise candidates and parties, Triad is the rare one that advises donors. For a fee, Triad would advise donors like Mr. Coates on which Congressional candidates and conservative political action committees to support. In doing so, Triad enabled conservative donors to maximize the impact of their dollars by coming up with back-door, but legal, ways for them to get money to Republican candidates in amounts above the $2,000 Federal contribution limits. This happened when Triad donors gave to candidates and to political action committees that would, in all likelihood, make donations to the same candidates. Using Mr. Coates as an example, he and his wife, Anne, gave $5,000 to the Eagle Forum, a PAC headed by the anti-abortion leader Phyllis Schlafly, which gave money to candidates to whom the Coateses had already given. For instance, the Coateses had already contributed $2,000 to Randy Tate, a Republican Congressional candidate in Washington. Eagle Forum's political committee gave him an additional $7,000. The Coateses gave $2,000 to Sam Brownback, a Republican running for Mr. Dole's vacant seat in Kansas. Eagle Forum gave $7,000. The Coateses gave $3,800 to Jean Leising, a Republican Congressional candidate in Indiana, and the Eagle Forum contributed $5,000. Similarly, the Coateses gave $5,000 to something called the American Free Enterprise PAC, which in turn, gave $7,000 to Mr. Tate and $4,500 to Mr. Brownback. In all, the Coateses donated to 14 conservative political action committees and 21 Congressional candidates; 17 of those candidates received money from the PAC's that had received money from Mr. and Mrs. Coates. ``I turned to Triad for research, and I liked their recommendations,'' Mr. Coates said. ``I mailed checks to PAC's and candidates that shared my pro-life Christian values. But what the PAC's did with that money, I had no idea. They got no direction from me.'' The role of Triad is under scrutiny by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, headed by Senator Fred Thompson, Republican of Tennessee. Under prodding from the Democratic minority, the committee recently subpoenaed Triad and two nonprofit organizations hired by Triad to find donors and produce last-minute multimillion-dollar advertising blitzes attacking Democrats. One nonprofit is Citizens for Reform, headed by Peter Flaherty, a one-time campaign manager for President Reagan. Citizens for Reform raised and spent $2 million from August to October 1996 on races in 10 states, with the most going to Kansas and California. Mr. Flaherty said in an interview that Triad had raised all the money for his group, which was founded last spring, and had spent it for him. ``We played a major role in the 1996 election, and we are quite happy with our results,'' Mr. Flaherty said. ``Triad produced our television ads, drafted scripts and bought television time. They basically managed it and lined up vendors for a television campaign and for our direct mail and phone banks.'' Citizens for Reform, as a nonprofit organization, is not required to disclose its donations. Because it engages in some lobbying, however, donations to it are not tax- deductible. In fact, it is the promise of anonymity--as well as a sky- is-the-limit rule on donations--that makes these nonprofit groups popular among big donors. Unlike contributions to individual Federal office-seekers and PAC's, there are no limits on how much can be donated to a nonprofit. And corporations, which are barred from donating to Federal candidates, can give to nonprofits. ``Privacy is important to our donors,'' said Mr. Flaherty, who added that his nonprofit did not take foreign money. ``Nondisclosure is something we definitely point out.'' The lack of disclosure, however, troubles some. ``This is completely invisible money,'' said Kenneth Gross, former enforcement chief for the Federal Election Commission. ``At least soft money is disclosed. This money isn't. It's one thing to have money that is under the radar screen. Money from nonprofits isn't even close to the radar screen.'' The second nonprofit Triad advised was Citizens for the Republic Education Fund, where Mr. Nofziger is a director. This group spent $2 million at the end of the 1996 election on advertisements produced and designed by Triad with money Triad had found for the nonprofit group. These spots focused on United States Senate races in Arkansas, especially against Winston Bryant, a Democrat who lost. Mr. Nofziger declined to comment beyond saying, ``As long as they are fiddling around with Senate hearings, it's best for me not to talk.'' Triad's founder and president is Carolyn Malenick, a former fundraiser for Mr. North. She also heads Citizens for the Republic Education Fund. Ms. Malenick's commitment to the conservative cause is well known, as is her fund-raising prowess. ``Carolyn is a terrific fund-raiser,'' Mr. Flaherty said. ``She has a Midas touch. She has a bigger vision than others. People were never asked to contribute at this level before.'' Triad collects a management fee based on donations to the two non-profits--in essence, a cut of all the money they raise. In addition, Ms. Malenick charges some donors a fee for her advice, on a sliding scale. ``My clients are typically socially conservative businessmen and women,'' Ms. Malenick said in an interview. ``I provide them with due diligence, or research, in the political environment. If you want to buy stocks, you go to a stockbroker and get research and advice. That's what I do in the political arena, which is heavily regulated. ``We don't dictate or tell my clients what to do. We say, `Here are the campaign giving limits and here are the laws.' We say, `Here are the candidates who are viable and who feel the way you do.' '' Mark Braden, former general counsel of the Republican National Committee and Ms. Malenick's lawyer, compared her to a corporate consultant. ``Carolyn has taken a Fortune 500 activity, consulting, and moved it to a group of socially conservative rich folks,'' Mr. Braden said. ``And it's worked well.'' One group Ms. Malenick said she did not work with closely is the Republican Party, although Republicans like Senator Don Nickles of Oklahoma have appeared in her literature. ``I'm not an agent of the Republican Party,'' Ms. Malenick said. ``I don't work for them. We choose where to get involved, and there is no need to tell them.'' Rich Galen, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, confirmed that view but acknowledged social ties between Triad's principals and the party. ``Lots of people in this town get seen in the same places,'' Mr. Galen said. ``So I don't want you to think some of these people don't show up in the same place and have a drink. But we do not do any coordination with them. That would be improper.'' As well as illegal. One of the questions Senate Democrats want answered involves the extent of coordination, if any, between Triad, the nonprofits and the Republican Party. If coordination is shown, then Triad's nonprofit organizations could face the same disclosure and spending limits as other political committees. Those on the receiving end of Triad's advertisements said they had been stunned by the onslaught. Jill Docking, a Democrat, was in a dead heat with Mr. Brownback for the Kansas seat vacated by Mr. Dole. She saw her chances vanish after an advertising blitz. ``We couldn't figure out where the ads were coming from,'' said Ms. Docking, a Wichita stockbroker. ``Even more frustrating was the massive deluge. The ads came at me in every direction in the last weeks. There were five or six of these ads to every one of mine. Our television looked pretty pitiful. It clearly swayed the election.'' Those who benefited from Triad's activities, like Senator Brownback, said they did not have a hand in the advertisements. Still, the spots did not hurt. Said David Kensinger, Mr. Brownback's deputy campaign manager, ``Never look a gift horse in the mouth.''

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, providing for veterans and their families is one of my highest priorities in Congress. The men and women who served in the armed services deserve the gratitude of the entire Nation. But rather than fulfilling our obligations to veterans and ensuring the continuation of benefits and the improvement of veterans' health care, we are letting veterans down. H.R. 2684 fails our veterans. This bill provides $1.5 billion more than fiscal year 1999 funding, and $1.6 billion more than requested by the president--but this is not enough. The Independent Budget, published by Paralyzed Veterans of Americans, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans and AMVETS, demands a budget increase of $3 billion for fiscal year 2000. This is the necessary amount to provide the health care and other services that veterans deserve. I have met with many Kansas veterans and heard accounts of substandard health care and loss of benefits. Not only are we eliminating treatment, we are rationing the health care we do provide. Veterans have shared their frustration with the state of veterans' health care, describing accounts of VA hospitals delaying and denying services. These men and women sacrificed for our country. They were willing to give their lives to protect the principles of our Nation. But instead of honoring and providing for our veterans, we are denying them the services they desperately need. I cannot support this appropriations legislation as it does not fulfill our obligation to our veterans. We cannot let veterans down in their time of need. We must address the alarming state of the VA health care system. We must improve the quality of veterans' health care. We must guarantee the continuation of services. We must not fail our veterans. In addition, this bill critically underfunds vital HUD programs, including the HOME program and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, which has helped state and local governments revitalize neighborhoods, expand affordable housing and economic opportunities, and improve community facilities and services for twenty-five years. I am proud to represent Kansas City, Kansas, a community that is a leader in developing useful and visionary ideas in the use of CDBG grants to rehabilitate existing housing stock and build new housing. I recently spoke to the mayor of Kansas City, Carol Marinovich, who told me that CDBG and HOME grants are the backbone of improvement efforts in Kansas City, from Peregrine Falcon Development that is building 68 single family homes in former vacant lots to Argentine Recreation Center that was built with a $1 million CDBG grant, providing a center of community to this mixed-income, minority neighborhood. These vital programs, like Section 8 housing assistance, public housing capital assistance, drug elimination grants, homeless programs, fair housing activities, Brownfields cleanup, and housing for persons with AIDS represent a commitment to our communities that this bill does not recognize. This appropriation cuts the National Science Foundation (NSF) by $274 million, which would undermine the Nation's investment in discovery and education, specifically in the institutions of higher learning in eastern Kansas, which has fueled unprecedented economic growth for the past decade. The funding cut from the NASA science programs jeopardizes U.S. leadership in space and has the potential to decrease research in our colleges as well as close NASA Centers. My final concern with this bill is its failure to meet Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funding levels of 1999, which could lead to excess emissions of as much as 12,000 tons of ozone depleting substances. This would result in a depleted ozone layer and increased cases of skin cancers and cataracts. For these reasons, I am voting against final passage of H.R. 2684.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, the people of Kansas' Third District sent me to Washington, D.C., to represent their concerns and do all I can to address major, pending federal issues. For this reason, I was very disappointed when it became apparent in the last few days that the House would not be considering proposals to enact a Patients' Bill of Rights. One of my first actions as a freshman Member of Congress was to join as an original cosponsor of H.R. 358, the Patients' Bill of Rights. This important legislation will ensure basic rights for patients and give them the protections they deserve. While the majority was unable to reach the consensus necessary within their caucus to bring a proposal in this area before the House for consideration this week, I am pleased that Commerce Committee Ranking Democrat John Dingell has continued active discussions with three members of the majority who are physicians--Doctors Ganske, Coburn and Norwood--in an attempt to reach a bipartisan consensus on a proposal to provide meaningful protections for managed care patients and physicians. I also want to bring to the attention of my colleagues a recent newspaper column by Steve Rose, the chairman of Sun Publications, which publishes the Johnson County Sun and several other newspapers that serve my congressional district. I commend to everyone Mr. Rose's commentary regarding the real-world problems that indicate a need for enactment this year of a Patients' Bill of Rights. Darla Wants Her Rights My good friend Darla is all for the Patients' Bill of Rights. She's had it up to here and won't take it anymore. Just last week, Darla called her doctor to ask if he thought it might be a good idea for her to try a new medication on the market called Celebrex, for her arthritis. Darla also has a stomach disorder, ulcerative colitis, so she has to be careful of side effects. Her doctor thought Celebrex was a good medication to try, at first in a small dose. So, he called the pharmacy in Overland Park and ordered a 30-day supply. When Darla arrived at the counter, however, she met trickled-down red tape, straight from the insurance company. The pharmacist explained that the health insurance provider had denied the prescription until Darla tried a generic brand first. ``What's the difference between the generic drug and Celebrex?'' asked Darla. The pharmacist replied, ``They're about the same, except the generic drug can be a little harder on your stomach.'' ``That won't do,'' replied Darla, ``I have ulcerative colitis, and I can't stand any medications that irritate the stomach.'' The pharmacist was sympathetic, but there was nothing to be done. Darla was advised to consult her doctor, who could contact the insurance company. That's exactly what Darla did. She called her doctor and explained what had happened. Said the doctor, ``I'll contact the insurance company, and get this resolved.'' A day later, Darla got a call from her doctor. ``I just spent an hour-and-a-half on the phone with the insurance company,'' said the doctor. ``I could not speak with anyone with any medical background. After being put on hold three times, and being switched from one person to another, all I got was a clerk who wouldn't budge. I lost.'' Darla is still fuming. There are millions of Darlas out there. And when the President calls for a Patients' Bill of Rights, he has a lot of folks clapping. Ironically, the President's proposal would do nothing for Darla. It only addresses mandatory emergency room care, an appeals process when insurance companies deny critical procedures, and the right of patients to sue insurance companies. Nonetheless, Darla figures, probably correctly, that if this first Bill of Rights can be passed, it undoubtedly will be amended later to deal with some of her issues. Insurance companies will scream that governments' intervention will only drive up health care costs. And they're probably right. But if you asked Darla, she would be glad to pay a little more to let the insurance companies know they cannot just roll over her, or her doctor. The Bill of Rights cure might be worse than the insurance disease, but Darla is so frustrated, she says she's willing to take that risk.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to speak to the last gentleman who spoke and say that I also heard Mr. Greenspan in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. I heard what he said, and what he said was, ``My first preference is to pay down debt.'' My first preference is to pay down debt. Now, maybe the majority knows something Alan Greenspan does not, but I do not think so. I do not think so. We have a $5.6 trillion debt in this country. We have an opportunity for the first time in a generation to do the right thing and put our financial house in order. The question is whether we will step up to the plate and do that or we will take the money and run and hand the debt to our children and grandchildren. It is simply not right. It is unconscionable and we should not do it. The fiscally prudent and the financially sound thing to do is to use 50 percent to pay down the debt, 25 percent for tax relief, and 25 percent for Social Security and Medicare.