Dennis Moore

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on July 29, the House Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power has scheduled a hearing on H.R. 1117, legislation introduced by my colleague from Kansas, Jerry Moran, and cosponsored by the entire Kansas House delegation. This legislation would provide relief from unfair interest and penalties on refunds retroactively ordered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. For two decades, FERC allowed gas producers to obtain reimbursement for payment of the Kansas ad valorem tax on natural gas. In a series of orders, FERC repeatedly reaffirmed the rights of gas producers to collect the ad valorem tax, rebuking various challenges to this practice. In 1993, however, FERC reversed 19 years of precedent and ruled that the ad valorem tax had not been eligible for reimbursement. FERC has since ordered all producers operating during a 5-year period in the 1980's to refund both principal and interest associated with reimbursement of the ad valorem tax. With this legislation hopefully headed toward consideration by the full House of Representatives. I am taking this opportunity to place in the Record a letter recently sent by Kansas Senate Democratic Leader Anthony Hensley to House Commerce Committee Ranking Democrat John Dingell, concerning the legislative history of ad valorem and severance taxes in Kansas. This background will be very helpful to our colleagues as they review this issue in the weeks ahead. State of Kansas, Office of Democratic Leader, Topeka, KS, June 18, 1999. Re: Kansas Ad Valorem Tax refund detrimental reliance on federal law. Hon. John D. Dingell, House of Representatives, Committee on Commerce, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Dingell: On June 8, 1999, the House Energy and Power Subcommittee held a hearing on the Kansas Ad Valorem Tax refund issue. This issue is extremely important to the State of Kansas and one of our most important industries, the production of oil and gas. As a 23-year veteran of the Kansas Legislature and as the Minority Leader of the Kansas Senate, I am writing to request your support of Congressman Jerry Moran's legislation to alleviate what I believe is a serious miscarriage of justice. I was a member of the Kansas Legislature in 1983 when Governor John Carlin promoted and obtained passage of a severance tax on oil and gas. Prior to 1983, Kansas did not have a severance tax, only an ad valorem tax. At that time, the ad valorem tax took approximately 3.1% of the value of production and was revenue used by counties and local school districts. Oklahoma and Texas, on the other hand, had severance taxes in place for many years equal to 7.085% to 7.5% of the value of gas production. Wyoming had in place a 4% severance tax on oil and gas ``in addition to'' a 6.5% property tax on oil and gas for a total tax burden of 10.5%. Likewise, Colorado had a severance tax on gas ranging from 2%-5% ``in addition to'' a 5.4% property tax, for a total tax burden of 7.4% to 10.4%. As you know, federal law allowed purchasers to add all of these taxes on to the Federal Power Commission's (FPC) maximum lawful price when purchasing gas. In Wyoming and Colorado, both a severance tax and a property tax were permitted to be added to the maximum lawful price. Texas had both a severance tax and a property tax, however, because of the way its property tax was structured, it was allowed to add on only the 7.5% severance tax to the FPC maximum lawful price. The Kansas Attorney General requested clarification from the FPC to determine whether Kansas' ad valorem tax could lawfully be added to the FPC maximum lawful price. In 1974, Opinion 699-D clarified this issue and did allow the Kansas ad valorem tax as a lawful addition to the price. In 1981, the State of Kansas needed additional funding for education, roads and infrastructure, and Governor Carlin began studying the potential for a severance tax. One of our state's most valuable natural resources was being depleted and consumed out of state, pipelines were strewn across Kansas, drilling equipment was taking its toll on Kansas roads and infrastructure, and little benefit was being derived by Kansas government. The price of gas at the wellhead, sold in interstate commerce, was being controlled by the federal government at prices far below fair market value, resulting in the transfer of enormous wealth from Kansas to out of state consumers. Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Wyoming and other states were collecting taxes on oil and gas at over twice the Kansas tax rate. Governor Carlin proposed a severance tax which, when added to the existing ad valorem tax, would be comparable to the taxes on oil and gas production collected in other producing states. The legislature studied various severance tax proposals for three years. Oil and gas severance and property tax in neighboring states were studied carefully. A comparative chart used by the Senate Tax Committee is passing the severance tax is enclosed with the attached Memo of Severance and Property Taxes prepared by the Kansas Legislative Research Department during the 1981 severance tax debate. One of the issues raised during legislative debate was whether both a severance tax and an ad valorem tax on gas could be added to the maximum lawful price of gas as established by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). We were advised that this was allowed in Wyoming, Colorado and other producing states, and that FPC Opinions 699-D allowed the pass through of the Kansas ad valorem tax. This Opinion had been specifically requested by the Kansas Attorney General and the Kansas Legislature relied on Opinion 699-D without further question. Finally, in 1983, the Kansas Legislature passed a severance tax ``in addition to'' the existing ad valorem tax. A credit against the severance tax for ad valorem taxes paid was added to the bill resulting in a 7% severance tax on gas and a 4.33% tax on oil. Clearly, tax policy for our state was based on the Legislature's reliance on FPC Opinion 699-D. Were it not for our reliance on Opinion 699-D, the severance tax would not have passed without amending our state's ad valorem tax to conform to federal requirements for pass through of both the severance and ad valorem taxes as was done in Wyoming and Colorado. When Kansas passed the severance tax in 1983, Northern Natural Gas Company asked the FERC to reconsider its Opinion 699-D to prohibit Kansas producers from passing through both a severance tax and a property tax. They were denied twice by the FERC. In 1988, Colorado Interstate Gas Company appealed the FERC decision to the Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals. I am sure you are familiar with the whole scenario that has followed. Nineteen years after Opinion 699-D was issued, the FERC, with incentive from the Washington, D.C., Court in the Colorado Interstate Case, reversed itself. Later the court would require retroactive refunds to 1983 based on notice of hearings published in the federal register. Now, because the Kansas Legislature relied on Opinion 699-D to pass a severance tax without adjusting the methodology by which the Kansas ad valorem wax was calculated, many Kansas independent oil and gas producers are devastated. What could the Kansas Legislature have done further to determine the reliability of Opinion 699-D? Should we have asked for a second ruling on the same issue? Would that have allowed Kansas to rely on the Opinion? Would three, four or five opinions have allowed Kansas to rely on the ruling? Was there someone the State could have sued to get final determination that we could rely on before we passed the severance tax? How can a state ever rely on a federal regulatory ruling if a court can in the future retroactively change the law and require innocent victims who complied with the law to refund large sums of money with interest? Certainly Kansas producers have done their part to provide consumers with an abundant supply of clean, cheap fuel. But why are consumers up in arms? In 1998, the price of natural gas paid to producers at the wellhead in Kansas averaged less than $1.96 per mcf. The price of natural has at the residential burner tip, however, averaged $6.82 in the U.S.A., with prices ranging from less than $5 to over $12 per mcf from time to time. Since FERC Order 636 passed, the price of natural gas paid to producers at the wellhead has gone down while the price of natural gas paid by residential consumers has gone up. The middlemen's share of the residential consumer's dollar has increased from 59% to 73% while the producer's share has decreased from 41% to 27%. Both producers and consumers are losers in this environment while the giant interstate pipelines and local distribution companies have seen profits rise dramatically. Now, I understand, the primary beneficiaries of deregulation--the interstate pipelines and local distribution companies--are before the Energy and Power Subcommittee in the name of consumer protection. How much of the refund will ultimately reach the consumer is undetermined at this time, but I am advised that any residential consumer likely will receive no more than $15 over a period of time. However, the total of these de minimis refunds, and what is not passed through to the consumer, equals the estimated drilling and exploration budget for all of Kansas for the next three and one-half years. As Democrats, we need to stand up for what is right and fair in America. Consumer protection is an enormously powerful political force but honest, hardworking producers deserve no less. Kansas producers were perhaps the only innocent parties in this entire scenario, caught between consuming states whose people believe they have a right to cheap fuel, and the governments of producing states who believe they have a right to tax oil and gas producers into oblivion. This is not a consumer protection issue. I do not believe that consumers in Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, Michigan or any other state will benefit in any way from this restorative reversal of law by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. A minuscule refund to a long lost consumer cannot offset the losses which will result from the destruction of honest, hardworking, productive citizens. Exploration in Kansas is almost totally dependent on small independent operators who provide an invaluable resource to consumers across this country. The destruction of this vital Kansas industry is not in anyone's best interest. I strongly urge you to support Congressman Moran's legislation to eliminate this serious injustice. Sincerely, Anthony Hensley, Kansas Senate Minority Leader.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to this tax cut package and to explain my votes on this legislation. H.R. 2488 is fiscally irresponsible and dangerous to the country's economic growth and future. The package sponsored by Representative Bill Archer would commit this Congress to cutting taxes by $792 billion over the next 10 years, dedicating the majority of an expected $1 trillion Federal budget surplus--that may or may not materialize-- toward massive tax cuts. Projections by the Treasury Department suggest that the cost of the bill would explode to $3 trillion in the second 10 years. This is the same decade in which our obligation to the retiring baby boom generation comes due, the Social Security Trust Fund will begin to be drained, and the Medicare Trust Fund will be exhausted. Mr. Speaker, I serve on the House Banking and Financial Services Committee. On July 22, the same day that this Congress acted to pass a $792 billion tax cut, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before our Committee. Chairman Greenspan not only argued that the projected surpluses on which this tax cut relies are based on spurious assumptions, but also that his preference would be to allow these surpluses, should they materialize, to buy down our $5.6 trillion debt. I listened to Chairman Greenspan and I voted against the majority tax cut bill. I voted for the motion to recommit, a proposal that would instruct the Ways and Means Committee to heed the advice of Chairman Greenspan and redraft their bill to distribute 50 percent of the surpluses to buying down our debt, 25 percent to tax cuts and 25 percent to ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare. Unfortunately, this motion failed by nine votes. For the first time in a generation, we have an opportunity to do the right thing, the financially responsible thing for our children, our grandchildren and our Nation--we have the opportunity to put our financial house in order by paying down our burdensome national debt. In 1998, we paid $243 billion in interest on the national debt. Paying down the debt would reduce these annual interest payments to fund future tax cuts or other needs. Paying down this debt would reduce our overall interest rates, as much as 2 or 3 percent. The benefit of such a decrease in interest rates should be readily apparent to any person in this country who borrows money from a bank or carries a credit balance. By way of illustration, if one finances a mortgage of $115,000 for 30 years at 8 percent, the payment is $844 each month. But decrease the interest rate by only 2 percent, and the mortgage payment is $689 per month for monthly savings of $155 or an annual savings of $1,860. I call this the ultimate tax cut. By way of contrast, H.R. 2488 would only place $289 back in the average taxpayer's pocket. This, while bankrupting America's future. I believe we should not let this opportunity pass. I believe we should be fiscally responsible and do the right thing now for our Nation and for our Nation's future. I believe that the only vote that represents this sort of resolve and discipline was ``aye'' on the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I also voted in favor of the minority substitute that provides substantial tax relief to working Americans who need it most. While I would have included provisions that differ somewhat from this version had I drafted this bill myself, the minority substitute contains the following provisions that are beneficial to Kansans: Estate Tax Relief: $26 billion in estate tax relief over 10 years to accelerate the $1 million exclusion from 2006 to 2000. Marriage Penalty Reduction: $74 billion in tax relief over 10 years to reduce the ``marriage penalty.'' The bill adjusts the standard tax deduction for a joint income tax return filed by a married couple so that it is twice the standard deduction allowed to single taxpayers-- $8,600 as opposed to the current $7,200. Permanent Extension of the Research and Development Tax Credit: $27.2 billion over 10 years to permanently extend the tax credit for businesses that engage in resource-intensive research, thereby encouraging economic expansion. A 1998 study estimated that a permanent R&D tax credit would result in an additional $41 billion in private sector research and development investment between 1998 and 2010. Child Credit Increase: $17 billion in tax relief over 10 years to increase the family child tax credit by $250 for each child under five. Limitations on Non-Refundable Credits: $36 billion in tax relief over 10 years to repeal the current limitation on the use of non-refundable credits to reduce an individual's tax liability. Non-refundable tax credits include the child credit, various education credits and the dependent care credit. School Construction and Modernization: $8.6 billion over 10 years for interest-free funds to State and local governments for public school construction and modernization projects. Life-Long Learning Support: $7 billion over 10 years to make permanent the exclusion from income amounts received from employer- provided educational assistance for both higher education and post- graduate expenses. Long-Term Health Care Credit: $15 billion over 10 years to extend a non-refundable income tax credit of $1,000 for each individual with long-term needs taken care of in a household. Mr. Speaker, this plan also restricts the majority of these tax cuts from taking effect until Medicare and Social Security have achieved solvency. This plan, along with my support of the motion to recommit, is the responsible approach to providing tax relief. I hope that this Congress can work together in the weeks and months ahead to provide reasonable and responsible tax relief to working families and family businesses while also paying down the debt and strengthening Medicare and Social Security.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 19, 1999, due to the failure of USAirways to provide scheduled airline service, I missed three rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: H.R. 1033, the Lewis and Clark Expedition Bicentennial Commemorative Coin Act: ``aye.'' H. Con. Res. 121, expressing the sense of Congress regarding the victory of the United States in the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall: ``aye.'' H.R. 1477, to withhold voluntary proportional assistance for programs and projects of the International Atomic Energy Agency relating to the development and completion of the Bushehr nuclear plan in Iran: ``aye.''

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, there is a request for a $790 billion tax cut, which I call totally irresponsible. We have an opportunity for the first time in recent history to start to pay down the debt, and if we spend $790 billion on a tax cut the money will not be there to pay down that debt. I had lunch recently with the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City and two of his top economists and asked them what would be the effect if we were able to pay down a substantial portion of the national debt? The economist told me that if that were to happen, he would expect interest rates to drop dramatically, as much as 2 to 3 percent. When I talk to Chamber groups back home they nod their heads and understand the consequence of an interest rate drop as being the ultimate tax cut. This will do more for us than any tax cut in the magnitude of $790 billion. We have a chance to do the right thing, the responsible thing, to start to pay down the debt, and not to pass this massive, irresponsible tax cut.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on June 19 I had community hours in Kansas City, Kansas, which is in my district. There were about 75 people who showed up to talk to me during a 2-hour block of period that Saturday morning. One of them was a man by the name of Jack Valentine. Jack appeared to me to be in his mid-60s and sat down and was very disturbed and started his conversation and our interview, our meeting, by handing me a copy of his Veterans Administration card and a copy of a letter Jack had received from the Veterans Administration. The letter read: Dear Mr. Valentine, I am pleased to confirm your enrollment with the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System. You are in Enrollment Priority Group 7. For this fiscal year through September 30, 1999, we are enrolling veterans in Priority Group 7; however, we cannot assure that VA will be able to continue your enrollment after September 30, 1999. What this letter told Jack Valentine was that in all likelihood his veterans' benefits, as far as prescription medication, would be terminated after September 30, 1999. Mr. Speaker, after Jack handed me the letter and I read the letter, he said to me: I have had three strokes, Congressman Moore. I have been in the hospital three times. My doctor told me that I need this blood pressure medication. If I do not have it, the next time I have a stroke, it will kill me. Jack has been told by his doctor that if he does not take his blood pressure medication, he is going to die. Jack has been told by the Veterans Administration that his prescription medication, his benefits, will most likely terminate on September 30, 1999. Jack Valentine is a 64-year-old veteran from Kansas City, Kansas, whose father, his grandfather, and great grandfather were all buried in military cemeteries. But on September 30, 1999, his Veterans Administration medical coverage will likely terminate and put him at risk for a stroke, a fatal stroke. He does not have any other health insurance. He is in Priority Group 7, which means he is above the low- income threshold of $26,000 for a household of two, and his medical case is non-service related. This has become standard operating procedure for our Veterans Administration, delay until the last possible moment or deny the procedure until they just give up all hope. Jack was there and talked to me. Jack, when he handed me his card and his letter, started crying, and Jack said to me, Congressman Moore, I don't know where to go from here. I am so upset about this. I have thought about going to the Veterans Administration, up on the hospital steps there, Veterans Hospital, and committing suicide. Jack was at the end of his rope, and I was his last recourse. I say to my fellow colleagues: we are Jack's last recourse. For the past 5 years, Congress has flat-lined the Veterans Administration budget. This is not any way to treat people to whom we owe a debt we can never repay. We should demand a quick turnaround time for claims. We should demand quality health care for our veterans. We need to fulfill our promise to our veterans. They laid down their lives in some cases, they gave of their time and their energy and sacrificed for us. We have a debt to those people, and we should repay the debt before, before we start massive, massive tax cuts. At the very least, we can fulfill the promise and the obligation we have to our veterans in this country. Do not make me go back home and tell Jack Valentine his veterans benefits, his medical coverage, his prescription benefits are going to terminate on September 30, 1999. As a Nation, we need to do the right and the honorable thing for our veterans. We need to fulfill the promise.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to express my support for a Patients' Bill of Rights act in the strongest and most personal terms. I have been in office less than 200 days, and I have grown tired of explaining to my constituents why this Congress does not want to extend basic rights and protections to patients in this country. One of my constituents who suffers from ovarian cancer was refused surgery by her HMO on the grounds that the surgery was experimental, although this particular procedure had a greater success rate than other procedures approved by the HMO. And on a more personal basis, my wife about 4 years ago was told by her physician she needed surgery. We scheduled an appointment with her physician, and he happened to be a high school classmate of mine and treated my wife for about 14 years. During the conference with her physician, I asked the doctor what needed to be done to accomplish the surgery, and he told me that it would be simple. Number one, we just needed to schedule surgery, and number two, he would write a letter to her insurance company in California and get authorization for this surgery. Well, he wrote the letter, and 6 days later he got back a letter from the insurance company saying: Dear Dr. Sullivan, before we approve this surgery and authorize payment for this surgery, we want you to do this test and this test and this test. Dr. Sullivan was furious about this letter back from the insurance company because essentially it was his attitude that she was, my wife was his patient. Everything this insurance company knew about my wife's case was from medical records provided by Dr. Sullivan to this insurance company in California, and yet they were trying to tell him how to practice medicine in Kansas. After about 5 months of wrangling back and forth, finally there was approval and authorization for this surgery, and it worked out fine. But the point is every time I tell this story back in my district, I see heads nod in the crowd because people have had a similar experience with an insurance company; and I think it is time in this country that we extend basic protections and rights to patients who need them to assure a balance between insurance companies and patients to make sure that we are talking about patients here and not just about profits. Mr. Speaker, the Senate is debating managed care reform this week. Let us give this issue a fair hearing in the House of Representatives and give my constituents the fairness they deserve.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, last week the House failed to suspend the rules and agree to a resolution that would have recommended that our nation's leaders call for a day of prayer, fasting, and humiliation before God. The Wichita Eagle, a leading Kansas newspaper, asked the Kansas U.S. Representatives to provide a statement explaining their votes on this proposal. I want to take this opportunity to include my response letter in the Record. Cathy Wilfong, Wichita Eagle. Dear Ms. Wilfong: On June 29, 1999, I was asked to vote on House Concurrent Resolution 94, a resolution asking that Congress ``. . . call the people they serve to observe, a day of solemn prayer, fasting, and humiliation before God.'' I voted against the resolution. Here's why: As a citizen, I value my own religious freedom so very much that I would be insulted if Congress told me how to pray, or how to honor and how to reconcile my relationship with God. In fact, our country was formed by people who came here seeking religious freedom and seeking to escape the tyranny of a king in England who told them how to pray and what kind of religion they would practice. One of the wonderful things about our country is that every person has an opportunity to practice (or not practice) religion exactly as he/she wishes. For me, religion is an intensely personal thing. I would never presume to tell somebody else how to pray or practice religion. And I would not appreciate anybody doing that to me. I was struck by the language in the House Resolution which stated that ``. . . it is the necessary duty of the people of this Nation not to only to humbly offer up our prayers and needs to Almighty God, but also in a solemn and public manner to confess our shortcomings . . .'' I invite the authors of this resolution to read Matthew 6:5-6. According to my Bible, Jesus said: ``And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites, for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.'' Just maybe our founding fathers had it right. In matters of faith, perhaps it is best that people have the freedom to practice religion as they wish without instruction from their government or from Congress. Very truly yours, Dennis Moore, Member of Congress.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 33, a bill to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States of America. Since our nation was born in battle 223 years ago, hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and women, and Marines have fought and died across the globe to preserve the great American experiment in freedom and democracy. One of the cornerstones of our freedom is our Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment protections for speech and political expression, has been the envy of the world for more than two hundred years. Our democracy has withstood many tests over time, and has been strengthened as a result. The occasional, random, despicable acts of public desecration of our flag by a few malcontents presents another such test. There is no more important protection provided by the First Amendment than its protection of political expression. I love our country. I love our flag--and the principles for which it stands. The American flag is a symbol for liberty and justice, for freedom of speech and expression and all of the other rights we cherish which are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. But as important as the symbol may be, more important are the ideals and principles which the symbol represents. That our nation can tolerate dissension and even disrespect for our flag is proof positive of the strength of our nation. It would be a hollow victory to preserve the symbol of freedom by chipping away at the freedoms we hold sacred. As one who served with the U.S. Army and the Army Reserves, I know how deeply our veterans love and revere our flag. I share those feelings for our flag and all that it represents. I have absolute faith and every confidence that even without amending our Bill of Rights, our nation and our flag are strong and will survive and continue to be a source of hope and inspiration to all Americans and freedom loving people around the world.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on June 14, 1999, due to a line of powerful, late afternoon thunderstorms that knocked out power to almost 40,000 homes in northern Virginia and caused the closure of Reagan National Airport runways, the airplane on which I was traveling was diverted to Richmond, Virginia, for refueling. As a result, my arrival in Washington, D.C., was delayed by over two hours and I missed rollcall vote #204 on the Bond Price Competition Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on June 7, 1999, due to the failure of USAirways to provide scheduled service, I missed three votes due to circumstances beyond my control. Had I been present, I would have cast the following votes: Roll No. 137, approval of the Journal of May 27: ``aye.'' Roll No. 138, passage of H.R. 435, Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act: ``aye.'' Roll No. 139, passage of H.R. 1915, ``Jennifer's Law'': ``aye.''

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss H.R. 1259, the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 1999. I want to commend the gentleman from California for his leadership in sponsoring this legislation that will take a step toward protecting the Social Security Trust Fund from being raided by the Congress and to tell the truth to the American people about the Federal budget. This legislation would tell the American people that in 1998, instead of a $70 billion surplus we actually had a $29 billion deficit. This legislation would send a signal to this body that we must continue to exercise fiscal discipline; that we cannot afford a 10 percent across- the-board tax cut or new spending programs. This legislation would prevent, for example, the $13 billion appropriation Congress made from the Social Security surplus just last week to pay for a measure that totaled $15 billion in so-called emergency spending, when we were forced to make a choice between funding our troops and saving the Social Security surplus. Mr. Speaker, I am committed to the principles underlying this bill. As a Nation, we must adopt and adhere to principles of truth in budgeting and fiscal responsibility. On February 10 I introduced H.R. 685, legislation that would permanently ensure that receipts and expenditures from the Social Security trust funds are not included in the unified budget. That was the idea of our former colleague, Mr. Bob Livingston. H.R. 685 ensures that the Congressional Budget Office and the OMB stop the practice of publishing confusing aggregate budget numbers that deceive the American people about the true nature of the Federal budget and tempt Congress to continue conducting irresponsible fiscal policy. Clearly, we all agree that now is the time to keep faith with our constituents, to present Federal budget information in a manner that demonstrates the state of Federal surpluses or deficits without reference to Social Security trust funds. I believed then and I believe now that the honest approach, the correct approach is to permanently sequester the Social Security Trust Fund today, tomorrow and for all time. A trust should be just that, it should not be violated. While H.R. 1259 is a step in the right direction, it does not get the job done. It permits any spending or tax bill, bills that would be paid for by Social Security Trust Funds, as long as the bill is described as one that would be intended for Social Security reform or Medicare reform. It fails to protect the Social Security Trust Fund from creative legislating. In short, Mr. Speaker, it falls short of the standard of honesty the American people deserve. I believe that proposals to protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare deserve careful consideration by this Congress. I oppose this rule because it limits debate. When the time comes today, I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of the Holt- Lucas-Moore language that would protect the on-budget surplus as well as the Social Security surplus from being spent; I repeat, the on-budget surplus as well as the Social Security surplus from being spent. It specifies that only when the trustees' report declares Social Security to be sound for 75 years and Medicare for 30 years can the on-budget surplus be spent. We will see you, and raise you one. Please join us.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit with instructions. The language contained in the instructions, which was introduced yesterday by my colleagues, Mr. Holt, Mr. Lucas, and me, offers the strongest lockbox of the proposals before us today. The Holt-Lucas-Moore language improves upon H.R. 1259 in two respects. First, it protects all unified budget surpluses, not just those attributed to Social Security. Second, it allows the Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare programs to be the arbiters of those programs' long term stability, not Congress and the White House. Mr. Speaker, we need to protect all budget surpluses until we've solved the problem of Social Security and Medicare solvency. The Clinton Administration and Congress, throughout this decade, have worked hard to bring us to the verge of a budget surplus. H.R. 1259, however, would allow us to exploit the surpluses through a loophole described as Social Security or Medicare ``reform.'' But the word ``reform'' is never defined. Let the Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare programs make these decisions--not Congress. We cannot allow politics to wreck Social Security and Medicare. Don't just take my word for it, though. I am including in the Record a statement released today by the nonpartisan Concord Coalition. These budget watchdogs ``give extra credit to Congressmen Rush Holt, Ken Lucas, and Dennis Moore for their proposal to protect the entire budget surplus, over and above the Social Security surplus, until real entitlement reform is enacted.'' Many of us are in Congress today because we pledged to our constituents that we would make the tough choices necessary to preserve and protect Social Security and Medicare. I made the same promise and adoption of the motion to recommit is an essential step toward keeping our faith with our constituents. Our responsibility to future generations of Americans remains. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit, and I thank Mr. Rangel for offering it on our behalf. The Concord Coalition Concord Coalition Applauds Social Security Lock Box Proposals But Warns They Are Not Tamper Proof Washington.--The Concord Coalition today commended the sponsors of Social Security lock box proposals, specifically bills H.R. 1259 and H.R. 1927, for their efforts to lock away the Social Security surplus. ``Both bills would make it more difficult for Congress to pay for new spending or tax cuts by dipping into the Social Security surplus. While structured somewhat differently, either bill would provide an extra measure of protection for the Social Security surplus. I applaud the sponsors of both bills for their commitment to this issue and give extra credit to Congressmen Rush Holt, Ken Lucas and Dennis Moore for their proposal to protect the entire budget surplus, over and above the Social Security surplus, until real entitlement reform is enacted,'' said Concord Coalition Policy Director Robert Bixby. While encouraged by the lock box proposals, the Concord Coalition cautioned that their enforcement measure--a budget point of order--is not tamper proof. ``Both lock box proposals make attacking the Social Security surplus subject to a budget point of order requiring additional votes. However, we only have to look at the number of yes votes for last week's emergency supplemental legislation to see that this enforcement mechanism is not tamper proof,'' Bixby said. For example, the Senate requires a supermajority of 60 votes to override a budget point of order. Last week's emergency spending legislation received 64 votes, more than enough votes to waive a budget point of order. ``The Social Security lock box proposals have raised the important question of how we can best preserve budget surpluses for entitlement reform. However, we cannot let these proposals overshadow the need for real reform. We hope Congress and the President will turn to this task next,'' Bixby said.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of legislation authored by my friend and colleague from Kansas' Big First District, Representative Jerry Moran, and cosponsored by the Kansas House of delegation, that would designate the Garden City, Kansas, post office as the ``Clifford R. Hope Post Office.'' Clifford Ragsdale Hope was born in Birmingham, Iowa, in 1903. He was educated in the public schools and attended Nebraska Wesleyan University of Lincoln, Nebraska. He graduated from my alma mater, Washburn University School of Law, in Topeka, Kansas, in 1917, and was admitted to the Kansas bar that same year. Clifford Hope then served in World War I as a second lieutenant with the 35th and 85th Divisions in the United States and France from 1917- 1919. After the war, he began the private practice of law in Garden City, and served in the Kansas House of Representatives from 1921-27, where he became speaker pro tempore in 1923 and speaker in 1925. Representative Hope was elected as a Republican member of the 70th Congress and to the fourteen succeeding Congresses, serving from 1927 to 1957. He chaired the House Agriculture Committee in the 80th and 83rd Congresses, when his party held a majority of seats in this body. He did not seek renomination in 1956, but returned to Garden City, where he served as president of Great Plains Wheat, Inc., of Garden City, Kansas, from 1959-63. Former Representative Hope died in Garden City, Kansas, on May 16, 1970. He lived a life dedicated to public service for his community, state, and nation. Our home state of Kansas, the United States of America, and American agriculture were all made better because of him. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to present remarks in support of this measure to name the Garden City post office after Clifford Hope and I am confident we will see it signed into law in the near future.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to explain my votes cast today on H.R. 775, the Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act. I have heard from a number of businesspeople from Kansas' Third Congressional District who are concerned over the potential for liability over Year 2000 computer failures or for the cost of remediation. I agree that we should provide incentives to make Y2K systems compliant before a problem occurs, and that we should encourage resolution of Y2K problems without litigation, wherever possible. Therefore, I support a legislative solution that discourages frivolous litigation, while ensuring that the courts remain available for legitimate claims. I am very concerned, however, that the bill before us today goes too far. Enactment in its current form will lessen the incentive for corrective action by businesses. I have several specific problems with the language in H.R. 775 that is before us today: The legislation includes ``loser pays'' language providing that, if a plaintiff damaged by a Y2K defect rejects a plaintiff's offer to settle a case, and wins a verdict for even $1 less than the settlement offer, the plaintiff would be forced to pay the defendant's costs and attorneys' fees from the time of the offer. This proposal would fundamentally alter the American rule that each side should pay its own legal costs, and would impose a tremendous burden on small businesses harmed by Y2K defects. Small businesses also often must resort to class action suits in order to pool the resources necessary to seek remediation through the judicial system. This legislation would impose federal standards on class action lawsuits excluding potential members of a class action who have been damaged by a Y2K defect from the class if they fail to respond to notices sent through the mail. The bill also adds additional burdens to our overtaxed federal court system by allowing the removal of state class action suits to federal court if the amount the defendant is being sued for is greater than $1 million. The legislation also would limit punitive damages--assessed for the most outrageous misconduct--to the greater of three times the compensatory damages or $250,000. When the defendant is an individual with a net worth of less than $500,000 or a business with fewer than 25 employees, the arbitrary limit would be the lesser of three times the actual damages or $250,000. I am unconvinced of the need to eliminate the option of assessing a greater level of punitive damages against a defendant capable of paying such damages, if his or her conduct was so flagrantly abusive that our judicial system finds additional penalties are warranted. Mr. Speaker, the Kansas Legislature considered, but did not enact, legislation to shield our state's businesses from Y2K liability. For this reason, I believe federal action in this area is appropriate. I supported the substitute amendment offered by Representative Lofgren, which addresses the legitimate needs of the high technology community without depriving harmed businesses and consumers of their basic rights. The Lofgren substitute encourages mediation, through a 90 day cooling off period and alternative dispute resolution procedures. It helps eliminate frivolous litigation, through special pleading requirements and mitigation of damages. It increases certainty within the legal process, by preserving the defenses of impossibility and commercial impracticability, and eliminating economic damages not covered by contract. Additionally, it limits joint and several liability. I know that the legislation before the House today will be substantially revised before being presented to the President for his signature. The companion measure has not yet passed the Senate; both versions would then be considered, and redrafted, by a House-Senate conference committee before being submitted to the House for a final vote. I hope the final version of this measure will include the kind of moderate, common sense reforms that my constituents and I can support. I will continue to work with my House and Senate colleagues toward achievement of this goal.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 165, and to recognize and honor Sergeant Richard Asten, a fourteen year veteran of the Kansas City, Kansas, police department, who on June 11, 1998, was struck down in the line of duty. On that fateful morning, just after 8 a.m., Sergeant Asten was filling in for a colleague who had taken sick when he was called to help stop a stolen vehicle. When Sergeant Asten placed a stop stick in the path of the vehicle, according to eyewitness accounts, the driver intentionally swerved to run him over. Sergeant Asten left behind his family: his wife, Margie Asten; and their three children, Lief Ray, Theresa Ray, and Scott Ray, who currently is serving our country in the U.S. Marine Corps. Mr. Speaker, supporting this resolution affirms the invaluable service provided to our communities by police officers and their families. Sergeant Asten and his fellow peace officers form the thin blue line that stands between us and those would do us harm. Passage of H. Res. 165 is the least we can do to honor and recognize police officers and families who have made the ultimate sacrifice so that we may enjoy freedom, safety and security.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituents to honor Ronald W. Poplau, a sociology teacher at Shawnee Mission Northwest High School in Shawnee, KS, and one of only five teachers in the nation to be inducted this year into the National Teachers Hall of Fame. Students and administrators who have worked with Ron Poplau have known for many years that he is one of the finest the field of professional education has to offer. For over 35 years, Ron Poplau has dedicated himself to giving students the tools they need not only to find their way in civil society, but to thrive. Like many Americans, Ron Poplau has drawn inspiration from his family. Ron's father immigrated from Germany at the turn of the century, and because of prejudice and fear, was not able to receive a proper education. When Ron became a teacher, it was the fulfillment of his father's dreams to free himself and others from illiteracy. Throughout his career, Ron Poplau has received many honors and awards for his work in the classroom. Most recently he has received the Wooster College Excellence in Teaching Award, the U.S. Army Outstanding Citizen Award, the Greg Parker Faculty Award, and has been twice recognized as the U.S.D. 512 Employee of the Year. But Ron Poplau's legacy goes far beyond his classroom. Most importantly, Ron Poplau has helped thousands of students foster a lifelong commitment to community service. His Cougars Community Commitment program puts hundreds of students into the community every day to assist the poor, needy, and elderly. It has become a model for other school districts and been honored by local, state, and national awards. Perhaps the definitive statement above Ron Poplau was offered by his colleague Beth Jantsch when she said, ``What Ron has done by the creation of this program is to leave a legacy of community care and involvement for generation to come . . . I can only believe that this will be a better world because of the lives that have been touched and by those that will carry on the torch of caring and community involvement . . . he is our shining light.'' On behalf of the people of the Third District of Kansas, I want to thank Ron Poplau for caring so much for the development of our nation's children, and for helping to strengthen our community by encouraging young people to extend their hand in friendship and service. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Ronald W. Poplau of Shawnee Mission Northwest High School on his induction into the National Teachers Hall of Fame.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the managers' amendment to H.R. 1480, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, and in support of the underlying legislation. I want to take this opportunity to thank publicly House Transportation Infrastructure Chairman Bud Shuster of Pennsylvania and ranking Democrat Jim Oberstar of Minnesota for their assistance in adding to the managers' amendment language I requested authorizing a badly needed flood control project for Turkey Creek Basin in Kansas City, MO, and Kansas City, KS. This language also is included in S. 507, the Senate companion measure to H.R. 1480, which passed the other body by voice vote on April 19. This project is of significant importance to my congressional district. Turkey Creek flows from its urbanized drainage basis in Johnson County, KS, and into Kansas City, MO, and the Kansas River. Severe flooding has occurred along the basin, most recently in 1993 and again in 1998. An improvement plan has been prepared in partnership with the U.S. Corps of Engineers. This project will provide vitally needed protection for commercial and industrial areas in both cities. I hope that Congress also will approve later this year an appropriation I am seeking to complete design work on this project. Once again, Madam Chairman, I commend the bipartisan leadership of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for bringing this important legislation to the House floor and my constituents and I very much appreciate their timely responsiveness to this request.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 22, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall vote No. 96, the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1141 offered by Mr. Obey. Had I been present for this vote I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to rise in support of the Shays-Meehan bill which is now pending before this Congress. As the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) has already pointed out, it passed the 105th Congress and died a slow death in the Senate. We need to revive and pass this legislation and do it early. I think most people would agree that politics and public service have become something of a negative and distasteful word to a lot of people in this country, and it really should not be that way. Politics is a noble profession, as is public service. Politics, after all, is really the art of governing without guns. I think the public reaction, the adverse reaction that we have and that we see in this country to political campaigns is a direct result of the public perception that both political parties are awash in corrupt money. People in this country believe that both parties receive so much corrupt money from interest groups, from lobbyists, from other sources, that the whole system is corrupt. We need to change that perception. We dramatically need to change that perception. Right now, the Shays-Meehan bill, if we pass this bill, will ban soft money. It will also regulate so-called issue ads which were intended to influence the outcome of elections for or against a particular candidate. Mr. Speaker, even an 8-year-old child watching one of these issue ads could tell which side the interest group is supporting by the expenditure of money. We need to restore public confidence in our electoral process, and I believe the only way we can do that is to pass a strong finance campaign law such as Shays-Meehan. I urge all of the Members of this body in the House of Representatives to vote in favor of the Shays-Meehan bill. It passed the last Congress. It should pass this Congress. We need to send a message to the United States that it also should pass that body and be enacted into law.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for his leadership on the management of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the School Construction Act. The American Society of Civil Engineers has reported that local school buildings represent America's most urgent infrastructure need. In my school district, the schools provide a perfect example of this need. The Kansas City, Kansas, School District needs $11.6 million, according to a study, to bring them up to standard: to correct electrical systems that are real problems in these schools, to provide adequate heating and air conditioning, and to replace broken windows. Federal tax credits would allow States and local school districts to build and renovate local public schools to stop overcrowding, reduce school sizes, class sizes, and foster a positive learning environment. I urge my colleagues to support the School Construction Act. We need to give our children safe and adequate facilities in which to learn. We need to give our children the tools with which to learn.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Ms. McCarthy of Missouri, and I join today in paying tribute to the late Reverend Dr. Edward Anderson (``E.A.'') Freeman, who we are saddened to report passed away on January 26, 1999, in Kansas City, Kansas. His funeral was held this morning at the First Baptist Church of Quindaro, where he had been pastor for fifty years before retiring in 1996. Reverend Freeman was the fifth of seven sons of James and Ollie Watts Freeman, born in Atlanta, Georgia, on June 11, 1914. He was educated in the Atlanta public schools, and received an A.B. from Clark College in Atlanta. After attending U.S. Army Chaplaincy School and Harvard University, he received his bachelor of divinity, master of theology and doctor of theology degrees from Central Baptist Theological in Kansas City, Kansas. His doctoral thesis was published as a book, ``Epoch of Negro Baptist and the Foreign Mission Board'' in 1953, and remains a standard textbook for teaching religious progress from the earliest beginnings of African-American life in the United States. After his early career as principal of Austell School in Georgia, Reverend Freeman served as pastor of two churches and as a U.S. Army chaplain from 1942-46, attaining the rank of major. After discharge from the Army, he was called to pastor the First Baptist Church in Kansas City, Kansas, where he served our community for fifty years. Reverend Freeman, simply put, was a leader in local, national, and international communities. He was a visionary who was driven to assist and empower people, fighting as a civil rights activist, community leader, and president of the Kansas City chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Additionally, he served on the Kansas City, Kansas, Planning Commission from 1955 to 1995 (as its chairman for 29 years), and served on the Kansas City, Kansas Crime Prevention Council. He also was a leader in church affairs, serving as: president of the Missionary Baptist State Convention of Kansas; president of the Sunday School and Baptist Training Union Congress of the National Baptist Convention, U.S.A.; first vice president of the Baptist World Alliance for five years in the 1980s; and as adjunct professor and member of the board of directors of Central Baptist Theological Seminary for many years. In addition, we must note the numerous awards Reverend Freeman won throughout his career which reflect his dedication to dialogue between different faiths, races and cultures, such as the Meeker Award from Ottawa University, which is given to individuals who have demonstrated a life of sacrifice, service to the disadvantaged, profound stewardship of life, unrelenting humanitarian services, and worthiness as a role model; and the Martin Luther King, Jr., Citizenship Award for Community Service, which embraced the philosophy of Dr. King and was presented by the Kansas City Kansas Martin Luther King, Jr., Holiday Celebration Committee. We join with the many friends, colleagues and community associates of Reverend Freeman in mourning this profound loss. As the Kansas City Star noted in its obituary, Reverend Freeman, throughout his career, was known for ``interceding in numerous personal, business, and church matters at the request of those involved.'' He will, of course, be greatly missed by his wife, Ruth Anthony Freeman, and their three children: Edward A. Freeman, Jr.; Constance M. Lindesay; William N. Freeman; their son-in-law, Horace B. Lindesay, Jr.; six grandchildren; and many nieces, nephews, and cousins. Mr. Speaker, in closing, we add to the Record two articles from the Kansas City Star, reviewing the life of this remarkable man, which are aptly entitled, ``Death claims a role model: Rev. E.A. Freeman was local, national social crusader,'' and ``Commitment was the hallmark of Rev. E.A. Freeman's life.'' [From the Kansas City Star, Jan. 29, 1999] Death Claims a Role Model Rev. E.A. Freeman Was Local, National Social Crusader (By: Helen T. Gray) He was a man of God, and a man of his word. When the Rev. E. A. Freeman put his weight behind a cause, things would happen. ``If he said he would do something, you could count on him to do it,'' said the Rev. C. L. Bachus, a fellow minister and longtime friend. ``Only the Lord could stop him.'' Freeman, 84, a longtime religious and civic leader, died Tuesday at the Alzheimer's Center of Kansas City in Kansas City, Kan. He had been pastor of First Baptist Church of Quindaro for 50 years before retiring in 1996. The Rev. Jesse Jackson, long a friend of Freeman's, will deliver the eulogy at the service Tuesday. ``He was a very well respected member of our community,'' said Carol Marinovich, mayor of the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kan. ``He was a gentleman, and a gentle man, very committed to all the people of the community. ``Freeman's influence extended beyond Kansas City. He was first vice president of the Baptist World Alliance, a worldwide organization of Baptist churches, for five years in the 1980s. He worked with people of different races, ethnic backgrounds and cultures around the world. During the Iranian hostage crisis in 1980, Freeman was among African-American ministers who went to Iran to try to open lines of communication between Islamic and Christian leaders. ``I had a great respect for him.'' said the Rev. Stacey Hopkins, pastor of First Baptist. ``Everybody respected him. He was always willing to help the younger preachers. Many of us tried to pattern ourselves after him. . . . He always wore a shirt, tie and jacket. Always. He was a good example.'' The Rev. Nelson Thompson said he worked with Freeman on several projects and admired his longevity. ``He was a mentor for me,'' said Thompson, president of the Greater Kansas City chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. ``He was a rare individual. Not many people can pastor a church for 50 years.'' Freeman was a past president of the Sunday School and Baptist Training Union Congress, the Christian education arm of the National Baptist Convention U.S.A. Inc. He also was a past president of the Missionary Baptist State Convention of Kansas. He had been president of the Kansas City, Kan., chapter of the NAACP; a member of the Kansas City, Kan., Planning Commission from 1955 to 1995, serving as chairman for 29 years; a member of the Kansas Board of Probation and Parole; and a member of the Kansas City, Kansas, Crime Prevention Council. When Freeman retired, he said his greatest desire had been to help people. He recalled speaking with city officials about problems that minorities faced and riding with police during the riots after the death of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., ``trying to keep everybody calm.'' Alvin Brooks, a former assistant city manager in Kansas City, said that his friend of more than 45 years had few peers, either as preacher or prompter of social change. ``He could really preach a sermon,'' said Brooks, ``But he wasn't just a preacher. He could walk into a room, and he had such a presence. . . . He was a great role model for young African-American men and young men aspiring to be ministers.'' The funeral service will be at 11 a.m. Tuesday at First Baptist Church, Fifth Street and Nebraska Avenue, Kansas City, Kan. Visitation will be from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday and from 9 to 11 a.m. Tuesday at the church. It was Freeman's wish that Jackson deliver his eulogy. Jackson spoke at First Baptist several times. Religious leaders from throughout the community and various parts of the country are expected to attend the services. He leaves his wife, Ruth Anthony Freeman; his children, Edward A. Freeman Jr. of San Diego, Calif., Constance M. Lindesay and William N. Freeman, both of Kansas City; a son- in-law, Horace B. Lindesay Jr.; six grandchildren; and a great-grandchild.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, today I am speaking in support of H.R. 68, the Small Business Investment Company Technical Corrections Act, because the success of small businesses is ultimately linked to their ability to obtain investment capital. The Small Business Investment Act has largely met the growing demands to obtain credit and equity investment capital. This is evident in my own district where an SBIC, Kansas City equity partners, invested in Organized Living, a local storage organization business. Today, through the assistance of the SBIC, this business has grown to a 6-store, 20- plus million dollar storage company. The changes offered in this bill will strengthen these public/private partnerships to provide small businesses like Organized Living greater access to investment capital. It will also lower interest rates on loans and better cash flow. These improvements will allow small businesses to continue to create jobs and add billions of dollars to our economy. Mr. Speaker, as a newly-appointed member of the Committee on Small Business and an original cosponsor of H.R. 68, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. MOORE

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take note of the tenth anniversary in business of SK Design Group, Inc., of Overland Park, Kansas. SK Design Group, Inc., was established in 1989 and since its founding has provided professional engineering services to such clients as the Stowers Institute, the City of Kansas City, Missouri, the Department of Defense, the Blue Valley School District, the University of Missouri, and many more. SK Design provides a full range of civil engineering and construction phase services, including site designs, storm sewers, roadways, sanitary sewers, and water lines. Mr. Speaker, I join with SK Design Group's employees in congratulating the firm's president, Sassan Mahobian, and its vice president, Katereh Mahobian, for their ten years of successful service in providing civil engineering and professional design services to the Kansas City community. We wish them many more successful years to come.