Kenny Hulshof

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Kay Dinwiddie and the First National Bank and Trust Regency Club, which is celebrating its 20th anniversary. Kay has been the director of the club since its inception. The Regency Club is open to bank customers who are at least 50 years old, and has grown from a relatively small group to its present size of more than 3,700 members. Although club members do receive special bank services and discounts, the primary focus of the club is on its group travel programs, which has taken them to numerous international locales. The club has traveled extensively throughout the state of Missouri, sampling the rich culture of the greatest state in the union. From Hannibal, the land of the great Mark Twain, through our fertile farm lands and national parks, the Lake of the Ozarks, to music of Branson, and the metropolises of St. Louis and Kansas City that bookend the state, Kay has shepherded her group to better know and love our great state. But Kay has also led her fellow Missourians abroad, and has traveled to such far locales as Australia and Africa. Kay has personally visited six continents, about 40 countries and crossed the equator 12 times. I have been informed that her travels when all tabulated account for more than 600 days and over 100,000 miles. You would think all that travel would have tired her out; however, she remains steadfast in her dedication to the Regency Club. I would like to commend and thank Kay for her commitment to the Regency Club and its extensive membership, my constituents. She has been a tireless advocate for club members and has worked for the greater benefit of the Columbia community. I hope to be voicing her praises in another twenty years.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 720, the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007. I am pleased to support this important and needed reauthorization of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Economic growth can only occur if the infrastructure, the roads, the power grids, and the water/wastewater systems can accommodate this growth. A community cannot prosper without suitable infrastructure. Too often, this vital infrastructure is not keeping up with the existing needs or future development. A recent report by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, found that, ``without continued improvements in wastewater treatment infrastructure, future population growth will erode away many of the Clean Water Act achievements.'' Further EPA studies have found there to be a gap of $181 billion between the revenue that is available and the wastewater infrastructure that is needed. It is expected that this gap will widen to more than $500 billion by 2019. These shortfalls unfortunately hit small communities the hardest. Water systems that serve these communities face a continued battle to keep their infrastructure in working order, all the while construction and maintenance costs continue to rise. Moreover, small systems simply do not have the ability to pass these costs on to their consumers. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund has helped address this need. This program allows communities to seek Federal and State dollars from the fund. From FY 2002 through FY 2006 the Missouri SRF provided $745,776,200 in loans to water systems. These dollars went to create new collection sewers, replace existing or outdated sewers, and build treatment and secondary treatment plants. Without these updates, the environment around Missouri communities would have suffered. So for these reasons I rise in support of this legislation. But I have concerns about extending Davis-Bacon Act requirements to all dollars within the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. While it is true the prevailing wage requirements of Davis-Bacon were attached to Federal dollars in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program from 1972 through 1995, these requirements have never been attached to the State dollars in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The unprecedented move of placing prevailing wage requirements on all State Revolving Fund dollars is bad national policy. Placing Davis- Bacon on all dollars within the State Revolving Fund is a gross overreach of Congressional power. Though Missouri does apply prevailing wage requirements, 18 States have said through referendum or resolution that they don't want to have a prevailing wage law. This is a decision that should remain at the State level, not be subverted by the Federal government. Unfortunately, H.R. 720 says to the residents and lawmakers of these States, ``you were wrong and we're not going to listen to you.'' This is wrong. Congress should not be in the business of preempting State law in this area. For this reason, I voted for the Baker Amendment which sought to remove the Davis-Bacon provision from the bill. I was disappointed that this amendment was not adopted. Because of the pressing need to improve our Nation's wastewater infrastructure, I will support this legislation but I do so with serious reservations about the Davis-Bacon requirements in the underlying bill. I am voting to move this important bill on to the Senate, but it is imperative that this unjustified and inappropriate provision be removed as this measure moves tough the legislative process.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, on November 19 of 1863, President Abraham Lincoln rose on the platform at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, following a 2-hour oration by Edward Everett, and gave a brief but very eloquent discourse that has become a prominent part of our country's heritage. At the dedication of the Gettysburg National Cemetery he acknowledged, ``The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is, for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.'' Can we find some poignancy today in those simple words uttered 7 score and 4 years ago? What is the unfinished work that confronts this body politic, and more to the point, does this resolution promulgated unilaterally by the majority advance the cause for freedom for which 3,000 of our countrymen have given the last full measure of devotion? For all of these rhetorical meanderings that have occurred lo these many hours, the responsibility for the current state of affairs in Iraq rests squarely with the majority of Members who serve in this Congress of the United States. Back on December 17, 1998, do you recall House Resolution 612 which declared in pertinent part, ``Resolved, by the House of Representatives that . . . the Congress reaffirms that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power' and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.''' I note that the gentleman who just spoke, along with 400 other Members of the Congress, supported that resolution as the policy of the United States, and thereafter in October of 2002, Congress, both the House and the Senate, approved the resolution approving the use of force and military action necessary to effectuate that policy of regime change. Now, deposing the former dictator, in relative terms, was the easy part, yanking him from his hiding place, a hole in the ground. He eventually stood trial in the dock as a common accused, was judged by his countrymen according to the rule of law, and held to account for the brutality of his many crimes. A second policy objective, promoting a democratic government has been the harder path, but though difficult, is it no less important? As my friend and colleague, my classmate from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) so passionately and persuasively annunciated yesterday, America has vital national interests in Iraq. Does anyone argue the contrary? Can we not all agree that we must deny al Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq? Do we not further agree that Iraq must not be the source of instability in the Middle Eastern region? Well, if we can agree on these points, can the majority make a legitimate case that this resolution accomplishes either of those important interests? President Bush recently nominated General David Petraeus as the new Commander of Multinational Forces in Iraq. Widely known as a brilliant tactician in the area of counterinsurgency, General Petraeus was unanimously confirmed by the other body. Today, however, the majority desires to deny this extremely capable commander the means to accomplish his objective. Isn't it incumbent upon us, as Lincoln urged, to remain dedicated to the task remaining before us? Haven't many in this body expressed frustration that the Iraqi Government has put limitations on the rules of engagement of our troops in our field, not allowing our military to hunt down the enemy because insurgents had escaped to a safe haven in a region deemed off- limits by the Iraqi Government? Well, isn't the majority party doing exactly the same thing half a world away with this resolution? Isn't denying military additional reinforcements deemed necessary by our generals in the field hampering our last best chance for success? Two nights ago I was moved by the quiet eloquence of the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) when he made the simple yet ironic observation: At no time in our Nation's history has this House considered a public rebuke of a sitting Commander in Chief for the manner in which a war has been conducted that Congress itself has authorized. On that score alone, I find this resolution breathtaking in its audacity. If I may be allowed to paraphrase the Great Emancipator, it is true, the world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but the world will never forget what we do here. I urge rejection of this resolution.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, looking back over this week's legislative accomplishments, I am sure democracy has somehow been furthered by our vote on Monday to congratulate the winners of the Orange Bowl, or our debate yesterday commending the two coaches of the Super Bowl. But today's vote has some significant consequences in that we are about to do great harm to our Nation's land grant colleges by erasing, zeroing out $186 million in agricultural research grants. Today's vote has real consequences. There are 24 of you on that side of the political aisle that represent colleges that get this money, and I specifically urge five of you that are first-term Members here, Mrs. Boyda, Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Courtney, and Mr. Welch, to consider the following: Your vote on this continuing resolution zeros out critical research grants in your home districts. At the University of Missouri-Columbia, my alma mater, this resolution forces 20 faculty reductions, the dismissal of 93 staff and 49 graduate students. You can argue that you open college doors by increasing Pell Grants, and yet those students are going to find the doors of plant and animal science laboratories locked tight. I urge a ``no'' vote on this CR. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, they are calling it the Missouri miracle, but it didn't start out that way. In fact, it was a parent's worst nightmare. A 13-year-old gets off a school bus near his home in rural Missouri but never makes it home. The local sheriff's office works frantically to locate the missing boy but has few leads. That was the real life saga for Ben Ownby's family last week near Beaufort, Missouri, in my congressional district. Last Monday, January 8, after a normal day at school William Ben Ownby rode the bus to school. He got off and disappeared. The wrenching news energized the local community. Volunteers turned out in droves to assist law enforcement and to search the nearby woods. Friends and neighbors began prayer chains and offered moral support to Ben's family. Police officers and sheriffs' deputies from surrounding counties lent their assistance. Fortunately the single lead provided by 14-year-old Mitchell Hults was a good one. Mitchell had gotten off the school bus with Ben and described having seen a beat-up white Nissan pickup truck with a camper shell, even describing the trailer hitch to a T. Two police officers who had gone to a Kirkwood, Missouri, apartment complex to serve an unrelated warrant saw a truck matching the description, sought additional legal authority and, lo and behold, last Friday, January 12, when officers approached the apartment, not only did they find Ben Ownby unharmed, but a second youth, Shawn Hornbeck, a boy from Washington County, Missouri who had been missing since 2002. More than 4 years ago, October 6, 2002, when he was 11, Shawn Hornbeck disappeared while riding his bike. In a similar fashion, the community and law enforcement worked hard on that case to no avail. Yet Craig and Pam Akers, Shawn's parents, never gave up. Their ability to persevere 4\1/2\ years is a testament to their strength and faith. During that time, the Akers family established the Shawn Hornbeck Foundation, whose mission it is to help families and law enforcement search for missing children. Craig Akers' commitment to finding Shawn and helping families has come at great personal expense and took a physical and emotional toll, and yet he remains devoted to helping others deal with cases of missing children. What a miracle that both youths were rescued. I would be remiss if I did not recognize the hard work of area law enforcement, especially singling out Franklin County Sheriff Gary Toelke and the Franklin County Sheriff's Department. Gary is a friend of mine. This happens to be the second time in 4 months that Sheriff Toelke has reported a happy ending in a missing child case. You may remember last September, his department recovered an 8-day- old baby girl when a woman attacked the baby's mother. That case became a national news story, as has this one. The outcome of both of these cases is a testament to that department's professionalism and commitment to the community. I also applaud the great detective work of young Mitchell Hults by remembering the details of that suspicious white pickup truck right down to the dents, rust spots and trailer hitch. Mitchell not only saved the life of his friend Ben, but also rescued Shawn from 4\1/2\ years of captivity. All are true heroes, and their diligence saved the lives of two young boys and brought solace to the Akers and Ownby families. On behalf of all Americans and parents nationwide, this House appreciates their good work. To the Akers and Ownby families, I am sure my colleagues will join me in expressing your shared beliefs that your prayers have been answered. Truly, a Missouri miracle.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Before my friend from North Dakota leaves the floor, the bill to which he referenced, he, in fact, along with 72 of his colleagues, voted for. The FSC/ETI bill that actually we are now pulling back that tax reduction. We are repealing that. It has been an interesting 2 weeks, Mr. Speaker. We have now forced small businesses to take on additional labor costs, yet we have done nothing to cushion the blow for the mom and pop stores across the country. Last week, the majority wanted to stick it to those drug companies that develop life-saving miracle drugs, while we all have family members who actually live longer and healthier lives because of those miracle drug therapies. Today, we are considering a tax increase on the domestic energy companies. Now, how many Members have come to the floor and made speeches and beat their breasts and lamented the loss of the manufacturing base in this country? And it is something we agree with, except that the majority's response then is to tax those very domestic energy producing companies? Let me make a prediction, not a bold one, but as we are wrapping up this 6 in 2006, I suspect that the newly elected Speaker will actually be in the Chair as the vote is called, and as the votes are there to pass this measure there will be thunderous applause from one side of the Chamber, with handshakes and back claps all around. You know who else is going to be applauding today's measure? The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Companies, upon whom we are already so dependent. You know who else is going to applaud today's efforts? Another big fan. The dictator from Venezuela. And, of course, there are some on the majority side who have actually called upon Mr. Chavez in Venezuela, visited him during the last Congress, and came back to this country speaking of his benevolence? The fact is, Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Research Service has reported that the net impact of the 2005 energy bill was to actually raise revenue from the domestic oil and gas industry by $300 million. But let not the facts get in the way of good bumper sticker politics. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 6. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the majority for making it a whole 2 weeks before deciding to raise taxes--34 hours if you are keeping track by the clock on the Speaker's website. It must have been tough to wait this long. I've been around here long enough to follow the twists and turns of the FSC/ETI case, and I'm somewhat puzzled by what we are doing today. It is true that oil and gas companies were not able to claim the previous FSC benefit. It is also true that Chairman Rangel championed an approach to replace FSC with a broad benefit targeted at domestic manufacturing. The JOBS bill ultimately provided a broad definition of manufacturing activity to avoid arbitrarily creating winners and losers. Yet today, we find ourselves here picking and choosing among domestic activities, without concern for the broader policy implications, based solely on the need for the majority's Leadership to put out a splashy press release about getting tough on big oil. The bill before us provides an insight into the governing philosophy of the new majority. The concern of people in my district--and across the country for that matter--is that we need to maintain an affordable supply of energy by breaking our dependence on foreign oil. By any common-sense measure, domestic exploration must be part of a multi- faceted solution to this problem. So in that regard, it is counter- intuitive to think that tax hikes on U.S. exploration activities will help provide an affordable, steady supply of gasoline to consumers. Put another way--most of us took Econ 101 in college. I must admit, it was a few years ago when I took this class, but the way I remember it, if an added cost is put on an industry--in this case a tax--those costs will eventually get passed on to the consumer. And in that regard, I guess the majority's desired policy aim is to make gasoline more expensive. Everyone agrees that we must break our dependence on foreign oil, and I take a backseat to no one when it comes to promoting homegrown renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel as a way to reduce our consumption of petroleum. In fact, had the Rules Committee made my amendments in order, the House could have voted to extend these important incentives. But the majority's answer to this problem--tax hikes--is simply misguided, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on H.R. 6.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the State of Washington mentioned medical school. Let me recount an old axiom that with learned in law school. We were told: If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the facts and the law are against you, pound the podium. Ladies and gentlemen, there has been a lot of podium pounding on the other side of the aisle today. The question is this, shall the government interfere with or intervene in a prescription drug plan that is working? Now, the majority seeks through H.R. 4 to strike this nonintervention clause. First of all, is anyone having a flashback to 1993 and 1994 talking about government taking over health care? But, more importantly, my colleague from the State of California, the incoming chairman of the Health Subcommittee, and 203 of his colleagues are about to do an abrupt, en masse, about face. Because in the Congressional Record of June 28 of 2000, you had this nonintervention clause, and 204 Democrats said, we don't want to give the Secretary the ability to negotiate in roll call 356. Now, what could possibly explain this inconsistency? Could politics be at play? The gentleman from Washington talked about some history. Let us go back over the committee history, because my colleagues from Ways and Means are here. First of all, during committee action we were chided there would be no plans available under the Republican plan. Then, of course, when we saw the plethora of plans, we heard the complaints from your side, there are too many confusing choices that seniors have across the country. Then you wagged your finger at us and said, well, we need to legislate the premium at $35, and then the total cost of the program is going to explode the deficit. Remember hearing that? Yet, on the other hand, as has been discussed, the average premium is $22. In the State of Missouri, you could even have a premium for under $15 if you choose it. Of course, we have seen how those program costs have come down. We heard from your side that the drug companies were going to do a bait-and-switch, that we were going to have low ball that first year and then we would see those prices being jacked up. Lord help us, what's happened? Drug prices have gone down. Imagine premiums and prices coming down in health care. Then my colleague from the State of California said to his colleagues, it is okay, once the seniors hit the donut hole, they will be angry, and they will be outraged. Then we have seen, of course, that every senior at least has had the opportunity to have full coverage, including coverage for the donut hole. You just can't find it within yourself to say we got one right. Just like welfare reform, surely, Mr. Leader, once every 10 years, you can say the Republicans got it right. We are witnessing cost containment and competition by incorporating private sector market principles within the public sector programs provision of drug coverage. Let us lighten up on the podium pounding, say no to government interference and no to H.R. 4. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4, and I would like to divide my remarks into two main thoughts: first, ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it,'' and second, the laws of intended and unintended consequences. Mr. Speaker, the Medicare Part D Benefit ain't broke. But Medicare was broken before there was a drug benefit. When I came to Congress, one of the issues I heard about most often from my constituents was the need for prescription drug coverage for seniors. In 1965, when Medicare was created to ensure that seniors had some access to health care, prescription drugs were not a primary mode of treatment, and thus not covered. But as medical science advanced, and miraculous treatments became available via prescription drugs, Medicare still languished without a drug benefit, and many seniors were faced with the brutal decision between buying their medicine or paying for food, clothes, housing, and other necessities. Seniors do not have to make that brutal decision anymore. Under the law, millions of seniors who previously could not afford prescription drugs are now receiving the medicines they need. More than 40,000 volunteers in communities across the country worked during the enrollment period, counseling beneficiaries and sponsoring events to help people with Medicare. I would like to commend these volunteers, volunteers like Debbie Catlett from the Hannibal Nutrition Center, who lovingly helped her friends and neighbors sign up for drug coverage. The system the Republican Congress set-up has been remarkably successful: The average premium in 2006, originally projected to be $37 per month, was only $23; and rather than increasing to the projected $40 per month in 2007 it lowered to $22 for this year. In Missouri, we have even less expensive options available, the lowest costing only $14.90 per month. Imagine that, health care premiums going down! Seniors are saving, on average, $1,200 a year on prescription drugs. At the same time, Part D recipients saw a 13 percent increase in the number of medications available. According to polls, about 80 percent of America's seniors are satisfied with their prescription drug plans. All that is on the micro level, what individual seniors are enjoying and saving; but let's look at the macro level. Over 90 percent of seniors now have drug coverage--if these seniors are paying less, the government must be paying more to pick up the slack, right? Wrong. The Medicare drug benefit cost nearly $13 billion less than expected in its first year, 30 percent below the $43 billion that had been budgeted. Long-term savings are even greater. HHS Secretary Leavitt just announced that the independent CMS actuaries are lowering their estimate of the cost of the benefit over the next decade by another 10 percent, with almost all of the new savings resulting from competition. The actuaries' new estimates show that total net Medicare costs are 30 percent lower, or $189 billion less, for the same budget window (2004- 2013) than the actuaries originally anticipated before the Medicare drug benefit was implemented. The long and the short of it is, Medicare Part D is a big, fat success. Look, the majority is upset that the Republican Congress enacted a successful, popular program, and the ``let Medicare negotiate low prices like the VA'' polled well for them (I've seen the polling numbers). But a bumper sticker phrase aimed at coopting that success isn't good policy. I've discussed how the program isn't broken and doesn't need fixing, now onto the intended and unintended consequences of this bumper sticker bill. Best case scenario if this Democrat attention grabber of a bill becomes law is that Medicare proves unable to negotiate lower prices than the marketplace currently does--and two non-partisan entities, the Congressional Budget Office and the CMS Office of the Actuary have said the Democrat plan yields no savings for this reason--and no harm is done. But worst case scenario is overactive bureaucrats or the next President take this negotiating authority and use it to force price controls, ration drugs, and deny doctor and patient choice of what medicines are allowed for seniors. So friends, pick your poison: On the one hand an impotent outcome as CBO and the CMS Actuary have foretold, on the other, Medicare setting prices and rationing seniors their medicine. I will remain agnostic as to which is the intended and which the unintended consequence. The reason the two economic models I've mentioned concluded no savings via H.R. 4 is that, fundamentally, the government cannot negotiate any better than the thousands of prescription drug plan managers in the private market. Under current law the millions of Medicare beneficiaries, via their prescription drug plans, are coupled with the 200 million other health insured Americans. Caremark negotiates for 70 million lives, Medco for 54 million, and Express- Scripts for 51 million. Medicare Part D allows our Medicare beneficiaries to piggyback on that huge buying power with professional negotiators. And the other side would rather untrained government bureaucrats negotiate for my constituents? No thank you. So let's look at the worst case scenario under this bill, where Medicare commands and controls seniors' medicine. Yes, H.R. 4 seems to disallow formularies, but in law school they taught me to look closely at the law. Page 3, line 20: ``nothing . . . shall be construed to authorize the Secretary to establish or require a particular formulary.'' But banning a national formulary does not protect beneficiaries from other government access controls to prescription drugs. For instance, the Medicaid program has no national formulary, however, it employs various strategies such as a ``preferred drugs list'' to limit access of medications. If beneficiaries want to receive a medication that is not on the preferred drug list, they must go through a lengthy and confusing authorization. If the authors of H.R. 4 didn't have this in mind, why did they strike the underlying MMA language that would seem to protect against this, that said ``The Secretary may not require a particular formulary or institute a price structure for the reimbursement of covered part D drugs''? The Ways and Means Chairman was thoughtful enough to hold a forum on this matter yesterday for our committee members, and both his and Mr. McCrery's invited witnesses agreed that to get VA prices, you have to set a formulary, and a strict one at that. Again, the Democrats' bumper sticker slogan is fraught with bad consequences--intended or unintended. Most importantly, the plan offered by Democrats would limit choice. Veterans have access to less than one third the drugs Medicare beneficiaries do--the VA formulary covers 1,300 drugs while the Medicare drug benefit covers 4,300 drugs. Drugs like Lipitor, Celebrex, Flomax, and Prevacid are unavailable in the VA plan. In fact, 20 of the top 33 most commonly prescribed drugs for seniors are excluded in the VA plan. Pharmacy access is another pitfall of the Democrats' slogan. In reality, the VA distributes 80 percent of its medications by mail. Medicare uses mail for less than 2 percent of its medications. Seniors appreciate the opportunity to talk to their local pharmacist and ask questions about their prescriptions, and we have 1,077 pharmacies in Missouri where they can do just that. The VA has 6 pharmacies in the entire state of Missouri (and only 332 nationwide); the Democrat bumper sticker slogan loses a lot of its luster when looked at through that lens. Simply put--seniors would find many of their favorite drugs unavailable and that's unacceptable. The price control plan offered by the Democrat majority does not guarantee that seniors have access to ``all or substantially all'' drugs to treat cancer, mental illness, HIV/AIDS, and Lou Gehrig's disease. These important protections are in place in the current drug benefit and our motion to commit will offer the majority a chance to continue to protect drugs for these vulnerable populations. While the plan being debated may be labeled ``price negotiation,'' it is more accurate to call it ``price fixing.'' Every time price fixing has been tried in other countries, it has failed. It has resulted in limited therapies and reduced innovation. And if the government saves the money from price fixing, the economic models show the cost will be shifted to the higher prices for the over 250 million non-Medicare Americans. In fact, the Democrat witness at yesterday's forum stated ``if Medicare gets a better price, some people will have to pay more.'' It's an easy campaign slogan to say ``let Medicare negotiate low prices like the VA.'' But, to get there, you have to make that deal with the devil and allow Medicare to set prices and force strict formularies. In conclusion, in attempting to fix an unbroken system, H.R. 4 faces the unintended consequence of either being lamely impotent at negotiating lower prices, or dangerously controlling by price fixing and restricting seniors access to drugs. Bad outcomes, whether intended or not; therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the career of a great Missourian, a physician who has practiced for years in my home town of Columbia, MO. He literally wrote the book on pediatric rheumatology, and has provided outstanding health care over a distinguished medical career. He is being honored at the Cassidy Symposium at the University of Missouri School of Medicine on October 7, 2006. Dr. Cassidy is an outstanding pediatric rheumatologist, well-known nationally and internationally. He has been a leader in the field of rheumatology for over 40 years and a founding member of many of the subspecialty organizations. Dr. Cassidy was born in 1920 in Oil City, PA, and received both his undergraduate and medical education at the University of Michigan. He completed 2 years of active duty in the U.S. Navy and 7 years in the Naval Reserve. He returned to the University of Michigan to complete his residency in Intellectual Medicine and a rheumatology fellowship in the Rackham Arthritis Research Unit under the mentorship of Drs. Roseman and Johnson. He went on to the faculty in 1963 and worked his way up the ranks, becoming Professor of Intellectual Medicine and Pediatrics in 1974. In 1984 he was recruited as Professor and Chair of Pediatrics at Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha, NE, and then 4 years later as professor in the Department of Child Health and Internal Medicine and Chief of Pediatric Rheumatology at the University of Missouri-Columbia. He became emeritus in 1996 and continued to staff his arthritis clinics until this year. He is a Diplomate of both the American Board of Internal Medicine and the American Board of Pediatrics and their respective rheumatology sub- boards. He has received many honors and awards including Phi Beta Kappa, Alpha Omega Alpha, Excellence in Education Award from the University of Missouri SOM, National Service Citation from the Arthritis Foundation, and Master of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). He is a member of a number of prestigious organizations including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, the American College of Rheumatology, the British Society of Rheumatology, the American Pediatric Society and the Society of Pediatric Research. He has served the academic and the rheumatology community admirably with service on numerous committees including as a Founding Member of the Council on Pediatric Rheumatology of the ACR and Chair of the Academic Pediatric Rheumatology Blue Ribbon Committee, the BOD of the Arthritis Foundation and the first Executive Committee of the American Juvenile Arthritis Organization, and Chair of the Executive Committee for the American Academy of Pediatrics. Through Dr. Cassidy's efforts, the Missouri Department of Health established the Juvenile Arthritis Care Coordination Program in 1993 to help families obtain family-centered, community based, coordinated care for children diagnosed with juvenile arthritis. Along with Drs. Brewer and Kredich, he was instrumental in the development of the Subboard of Pediatric Rheumatology and the acceptance of educational training programs in Pediatric Rheumatology by the American Council of Graduate Medical Education. He has published over 150 manuscripts and book chapters and is the founding author of the ``Textbook of Pediatric Rheumatology'' now in its fifth Edition and the leading textbook in the field. He is a frequent invited speaker, having addressed audiences all over the world. In summary, he is the consummate academician and a founding member of pediatric rheumatology as a recognized subspecialty. He is a great American, he has treated my constituents and their children with dedication and sympathy, and I am grateful they have brought his distinguished career to my attention. I congratulate Dr. Cassidy on his many successes, and wish him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I wish to report upon a recent event which was refreshingly bipartisan that succeeded in advancing humanitarian causes and personal fitness, all in the same event. There were no political speeches. It was simply a group coming together from different political perspectives. I am speaking of the eighth annual Hoops For Hope, the intense athletic contest between select Members of this venerable institution and a representative team from the seemingly infinite number of registered lobbyists. Our bipartisan bicameral group of eight, small in size and stature, took the court against an all-star team of superior athletes. On paper, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, our undermanned, overmatched band, should have never even been in the same building as our foe. But as they say on ESPN SportsCenter, that's why they play the game. Suffice it to say that this impressive and gleaming trophy suggests the outcome of the game. Yes, we Members defeated the lobbyists 44-39. But the true winners are the kids of the D.C. area and beyond who will benefit through three extremely worthwhile charities: Hill Help, Horton's Kids, and the Luke Tiahrt Foundation. The moneys raised from this cause will help provide comprehensive service to underserved kids in an effort to improve the quality of each child's daily life and enhance each child's desire and ability to succeed academically. This is through money raised to go to tutoring, to participate in community service projects, summer camp and mentoring. This annual event, Hoops For Hope, was the brainchild of Paul Miller, President of the American League of Lobbyists, and our former colleague from New York, Mr. Quinn. The first game 8 years ago generated about $7,500 for charity. After this most recent event the other night, the cumulative total has exceeded $260,000. Over a quarter of a million dollars have been raised during the life of this charitable event. There was some concern expressed earlier, I admit, concerning the scandal surrounding a high-profile lobbyist as to whether the game would even go forward this year. Well, the American League of Lobbyists passed a code of ethics in 1987 in order to help preserve and advance the public trust in the democratic process. Paul Miller, who was instrumental in this game and this cause, has so passionately advocated for lobbying reform in several congressional hearings before the other body and our own. Let me say a special thank you to that band of eight: Senator Thune from South Dakota, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and the dean of our group, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), who is retiring after serving this institution so venerably. In fact, Mr. Oxley was inducted into the Hoops for Hope Hall of Fame; and, as I remarked to the crowd then, Mr. Oxley's belief about basketball is if it feels like leather, shoot it. We will miss Mr. Oxley's on-court antics. I want to thank Roll Call and George Washington University for their instrumental role as far as making a very successful eighth annual Hoops for Hope. I invite my teammates on both sides of the aisle to share in the spoils of victory. I mentioned this to some of my teammates. This trophy can be an impressive office decoration. It certainly is a unique conversation starter or simply a gaudy hood ornament.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I rise to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Chair of the Health Subcommittee, especially for her bold initiative and leadership on this bill, for really trying to wrestle with a very important issue and looking ahead and being a visionary as far as employing technology and how we can improve health care in this country. It is a good bill. I am proud to be an original cosponsor. I would especially like to touch some the telemedicine, telehealth, provisions. I appreciate very much that Mr. Thompson of California and I have put together a bill where the bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that with advancements in telecommunications, health care providers in small communities can now access resources that are available in the finest hospitals and academic institutions in the country. The quality of one's health care should not be dictated by one's ZIP Code. So I am very excited about the fact that technologies like interactive video conferencing, the Internet, satellite, are already systematically changing the face of our Nation's health care. This legislation directs the Secretary to work with the telehealth community, especially as far as services across State lines. We know that that is an issue. We want to expand the origination and consulting sites so that more of our underserved communities will have access to the best health care that the community has to offer. I would like to brag a little bit, Mr. Chairman, because telehealth patients from small towns throughout my district in Missouri have been receiving specialist care or services from a variety of specialists, including mental health providers. I know that is certainly a hot-button issue for many here, without having to take available time, maybe, away for caring for a loved one or from work or for school or for other parental duties. Right now there are 2,000 patients in Missouri that are cared for using Missouri's telehealth network. It is estimated over 40,000 radiological examinations have been performed. In fact, one example: a critical-access hospital in the small town of Macon, Missouri, unexpectedly lost the only radiologist in the area. There was not another specialist within that underserved area. Fortunately, the University of Missouri stepped in to provide coverage during this 4-month period of time so this small community could have access to a qualified radiologist. Again, there are lots of good things in this bill. But telemedicine is one piece of it. I commend the chairwoman and I urge everyone to support it. I thank the chair of the Health Subcommittee, on which I serve, for her bold leadership on this bill and improving health information technology in this country. H.R. 4157 will launch the American healthcare system into full capacity to take advantage of the best technology. This will give all Americans better health care, more accessible medical records, and better quality of care. It is a good bill of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor. I would like to touch on the telemedicine provisions of the bill. The Health Information Technology Promotion Act includes important provisions for the advancement of telehealth services--Requires the Secretary of HHS to take steps that expedite the provision of telehealth services across State lines by taking a closer look at State licensure issues; requires the Secretary to conduct two studies: (1) a study on the use of store and forward technology in the provision of telehealth services; and (2) a study on the coverage of telehealth services provided in home health agencies, county mental health clinics and other publicly funded mental health facilities. Advancement in telecommunications now allows health care providers in small communities to access the resources available in the finest hospitals and academic institutions. Individuals in this country should receive the health care they need regardless of where they live. A person's address should not dictate the state of their health. Technologies such as interactive videoconferencing, the Internet and satellite are already systematically changing the face of our Nation's health care. In 2000, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the telehealth provisions of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000, BIPA, would cost $150 million over 5 years. In June I asked CMS to provide me with information on how much the Federal Government has spent to date to get an idea of how close we are to CBO projections. I was astonished to find that since October 1, 2001 Medicare has only reimbursed for approximately $1.2 million total for telehealth services and originating site facility fees. This illustrates that the Federal Government has made a minor contribution compared to what we were expected to spend. And more needs to be done. This legislation highlights the capabilities of telemedicine by directing the Secretary to work with the telehealth community to find solutions to the services across State lines issue, and expanding origination and consulting sites so more of our underserved communities will have access to the best health care this country has to offer. I would also like to brag on how, because of telehealth, patients from small towns throughout my district are able to receive services from a variety of specialists, including mental health providers, without having to take valuable time away from work, school or parental duties. Currently in Missouri, over 2,000 patients per year are cared for using the Missouri Telehealth Network and it is estimated that over 40,000 radiology exams have been performed. In fact, in my district, a Critical Access Hospital in the town of Macon unexpectedly lost its only radiologist, leaving the area without a specialist in this area. Fortunately, the University of Missouri stepped in to provide coverage through the telehealth network for a 4-month period until a new radiologist was hired. Without this option, Macon residents would have been forced to either commute or simply go without radiological care. It is my hope that via this legislation, rural and underserved areas in my district and across the country will be able to find the same successes experienced with the Missouri Telehealth Network.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution, in support of our troops, and in support of our Nation's efforts in the Global War on Terror. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, we find ourselves locked in a struggle with an enemy that despises liberty and embraces an ideology of hate. Terrorists did not declare war on us the morning of September 11, 2001. It started long before that. Consider the following: In November of 1979, radical Iranians seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, holding 53 American hostages for 444 days. Less than four years later, 63 people died when the U.S. Embassy in Beirut is bombed. Scant months later, 242 Americans and 58 French are killed by simultaneous suicide bombers in the American and French compounds in Beirut. March 1984, Islamic terrorists kidnapped and murdered Political Officer William Buckley. One year later, terrorists seized the Italian cruise liner the Achille Lauro and killed Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year-old American who was confined to a wheelchair. In June of 1985, Lebanese Hizballah terrorists hijacked a TWA flight forcing the plane to fly to Beirut. Eight crew members and 145 passengers are held hostage for 17 days, during which time a U.S. sailor is murdered. April 1986, two U.S. soldiers are killed and 79 are injured when Libyan nationals detonated bombs in a West Berlin discotheque. Two years later, Libyans again take American lives when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland. All of the 259 people on board are killed. On February 26, 1993, for the first time, Islamic terrorists strike on American soil when a car bomb explodes in the garage of the World Trade Center, killing six and injuring 1,000. On April 14, 1993, Iraqi intelligence operatives attempted to assassinate former President Bush. In 1995, a car bomb exploded at a U.S. military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, one U.S. citizen is killed. Seven months later a truck bomb detonated outside the Khobar Towers in Dhahram, Saudi Arabia. Nineteen Airmen are killed and 515 people are wounded. In August of 1998, the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania fall victim to coordinated attacks. Over 300 are killed. Two years latter, a small watercraft laden with explosives rammed into the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors. Finally, September 11, 2001, two hijacked airliners hit the World Trade Center towers, another plane crashed into the Pentagon and a fourth plane, headed for either the White House or U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., crashed in a Pennsylvania cornfield. All told, 3,025 perish. But until we took action in Afghanistan, our response to terror was often non-existent, sporadic, or inconsistent. In the wake of September 11, the American people rightfully demanded that their elected officials make a commitment to aggressively combat terrorism. We went into Afghanistan to proactively stop further attacks on innocent Americans. Afghanistan was a haven for al-Qaeda, and the terror attacks on our own soil showed us that we can no longer rely on oceans and geography to protect our homeland :from attack. Thus, we must drain the swamps where terrorism breeds and take the fight to those who have, through their own words and deeds, declared war on us. In addition to the real-life need to protect our citizens, there is a larger meaning in our efforts in the Global War on Terror. Those we fight abhor freedom and liberty. They shun religious tolerance and view with disdain our deeply held belief that every person is endowed with basic human rights. And make no doubt about it--our enemy in the Global War on Terror is determined to impose their dangerous ideology on innocent people around the globe. The carnage of September 11 showed us that we can no longer turn a blind-eye as hate-filled terrorists plot against our Nation and its citizens. Then there is the question of Iraq. Hindsight is 20/20, and we now know that Iraq did not possess significant stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. But let us look at the evidence from the time--the evidence upon which the Congress, the Administration, and our allies around the world had to judge the threat posed by Iraq. Saddam Hussein had a long history of pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Like the terrorist acts against this country, Saddam's determination to pursue weapons of mass destruction and desire to intimidate his neighbors in the region began long ago. In the 1970's, Iraq started constructing a nuclear reactor in Osirak. The international community did nothing in response to this gathering threat. Israel, not content to watch Saddam Hussein move forward with a nuclear program, destroyed the reactor in 1981. In the 1980s and the early part of the 1990s, Saddam Hussein's regime proved time and again that they were a threat to peace and stability in the region. Saddam repeatedly, almost continually, used chemical and biological weapons on his own citizens and Iranian troops. For example: In August 1983, Saddam used mustard gas on almost 100 Iranians and Kurds in Haji Uman. From October through November of that same year, he used mustard gas on 3,000 Iranians and Kurds in Panjwin. One year later on Manjoon Island, Saddam again used mustard gas on 2,500 Iranians. Simultaneously, he used the nerve agent tabun on 50 to 100 Iranians in Al Basrah. A year later, in March of 1985, mustard and tabun were used in Hawizah Marsh on 3,000 Iranians. February of 1986 in Al-Faw, mustard and tabun were used against 8,000 to 10,000 Iranians. Later in 1986 in Urn ar-Rasas, mustard gas was used against thousands of Iranians. Then in April of 1987 at Al-Basrah, mustard and tabun were used on 3,000 Iranians. Later that year, mustard and a nerve agent were used in Sumar/Mehran on 5,000 Iranians. In March of 1988, mustard and a nerve agent were used on thousands of Iranians and Kurds in Halabjah and Kurdish areas respectively. One month later, Al-Faw again sees destruction when mustard and a nerve agent were used on thousands of Iranians. One month after that, Fish Lake sees hundreds or thousands of Iranians succumb to mustard or a nerve agent. In June of 1988, Manjoon Island was attacked with mustard and nerve agent, this time hundreds or thousands were affected. July of that year, the chemical agents were again used along the South-central border with the same effect. One month later in Haij Urnran, mustard gas was used on less than 100 Kurds. And finally, in March of 1991 in the An-Najaf-Karbala area, nerve agent was yet again used by Hussein's regime. These attacks demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt Saddam Hussein's willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against not only his foreign enemies, but even his own citizens. Now, let us remember that the intelligence community around the world continued to assert that Iraq under Saddam Hussein continued to pursue the means to produce and deploy weapons of mass destruction. It would have been irresponsible--in light of Saddam's record of using these weapons--to ignore these intelligence warnings. And I might also add that in the wake of these intelligence shortcomings and in response to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, the House has taken concrete steps to improve our intelligence gathering and analytical capabilities. Three years ago when I addressed this House on the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, I said, ``while I do not find sufficient evidence to establish a concrete link between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist that committed the terrorist acts of September 11th, the fact remains that Iraq continues to sponsor terrorists with global reach.'' I think this analysis holds true today. To use the words of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, ``September 11 was not an isolated event but a tragic prologue, Iraq another act, and many further struggles will be set upon this stage before it's over.'' Let us remember--Iraq had been labeled a State Sponsor of Terrorism by both the current Bush Administration as well as the Clinton Administration. Removing this breeding ground of terrorism was and is in this country's best interest. Furthermore, Saddam demonstrated a complete disregard for his international obligations. Over the course of more than a decade, he willfully violated or simply ignored 17 U.N. Security Council Resolutions. He attempted to assassinate our former President, and he continually violated the peace treaty that he signed to end the first Gulf War. And let us not forget that Saddam also invaded two of his sovereign neighbors. Saddam Hussein's blatant disregard for basic human rights was well- documented. He used fear arid intimidation to retain his grip on power, and his henchmen employed torture, rape, murder and a host of other unspeakable crimes to keep the Iraqi populace under his tyrannical control. I think it is again worth reminding my colleagues that these evil individuals no longer control Iraq, and Saddam finds himself on trial before his fellow Iraqis for crimes against his own people. I believe that history will excuse the errors in our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction and reach a common-sense conclusion-- military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power was justified, and the world is a safer place with Saddam Hussein in a jail cell. The storm clouds were gathering in Iraq. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt said in his 1941 State of the Union Address, ``when the dictators . . . are ready to make war upon us, they will not wait for an act of war on our part . . . they--not we--will choose the time and the place and the method of their attack.'' The wisdom of President Franklin Roosevelt still rings true today. It would have been a grave mistake to dismiss or ignore the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Our actions in Iraq and in Afghanistan were in response to the global threat we faced from state sponsors of terror that harbored and assisted our enemies. And whether you supported or opposed military action in Afghanistan and the use of force in Iraq, the fact of the matter is that we now have troops in the field working diligently to help fledgling democracies take hold in the Middle East. The world is watching, and we must remain committed to our principles and our mission. And we have a duty to stand behind our troops. It is in our national security interests for the seeds of democracy take hold in Iraq. And we must continue to train and assist Iraqis to provide for their own security. A significant step towards the goal of a free, peaceful and independent Iraq will be the development of security forces, composed of and led by Iraqis, that is firmly under the direction and control of the freely elected government. Ultimately, success will be achieved when Iraq is a stable country that is no longer a threat to the region or global security, a peaceable country that respects the rights of its citizens and its neighbors. This is a difficult but worthwhile endeavor. And we are making tangible progress. Iraqi security forces are growing in number and taking more responsibility for internal security. We have now trained more than 240,000 security forces, and these men and even some women are now beginning to take the lead in the fight against terrorist insurgents. Indigenous personnel and intelligence assets played a key role in the successful mission that led to the elimination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq. Democracy is taking root in Iraq. The Iraqi people have approved what is arguably the most progressive constitution in the Arab world, and last December, 75 percent of voting age Iraqis freely elected their new government. Iraq now has a new Prime Minister, Jawad al-Maliki, and the Prime Minister has filled all of the positions in his cabinet. The new government is a representative cross-section of Iraq's diverse religious and ethnic populations. Things are moving forward on the economic front. In 2005, the Iraqi economy grew by an estimated 2.6 percent in real terms and the International Monetary Fund has estimated that it will grow by more than 10 percent this year. Foreign and domestic banks are opening new offices in Iraq and a stock market has been established. Vital infrastructure--schools, hospitals, fire stations and the like-- continues to come online. Progress in Iraq has been slow, but it is happening, and slowly but surely, things are moving in the right direction. It has been suggested by some in this Chamber that we should either immediately remove our troops from Iraq or set artificial timelines for withdrawal. Like all Americans, I want our troops to return as soon as is possible. But I think it would be short-sighted to withdraw our military until stability has been established in Iraq. A premature withdrawal would waste the sacrifice of those who have worked so hard to promote freedom in the heart of the Middle East. The National Defense Authorization Act for 2006 stated that ``2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq.'' I agree with this language. However, the job now is not finished. Iraqi security forces are not ready to counter all of the threats that are facing Iraq and cannot secure their country on their own. If we made the ill-fated decision to turn our backs on the Iraqi people, we would doom their brief experience with democracy and risk creating a lawless safe-haven for terrorists. Our enemies know what is at stake in Iraq. Al-Qaeda views Iraq as the frontline in their efforts to combat the spread of democracy in the Middle East. They realize that our success in Iraq is a direct threat to their ideology of fear and hate. To walk away now from our mission in Iraq would be portrayed in the Arab World as a significant victory for al-Qaeda. It would draw into question or commitment to our allies in the region and our commitment to the very principles upon which our Nation is based. Like all Americans, I want our troops home as soon as possible. And we as Congress have a constitutional obligation to weigh-in on this effort and ensure that our Nation's policy is consistent with a goal of achieving victory in Iraq. And as appealing as an immediate withdrawal may be to certain segments of our society, I think it would be irresponsible for Congress to turn our back on our obligations and call for the removal of troops from Iraq before the mission has been accomplished. And as a matter of fairness, the embrace of a ``cut and run'' approach to Iraq would waste the sacrifice of thousands of American troops who have served in Iraq. Since September 11, 2001, we have not had a major terrorist attack on American soil, despite the clear desire of our enemy to again strike us here at home. We have terminated or captured dangerous terrorists around the globe, disrupted their financing, and denied them safe- haven. We should be proud of these accomplishments, but remain vigilant in recognizing that more work remains. God willing, we will prevail in this struggle. May God bless the United States, and God bless the soldiers that defend it.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, one of the interesting things about sitting through the debate and hearing all of the various points and wanting desperately to respond to each and every one of them, and not having the time to, I would say to my colleague from the Ways and Means Committee from the State of Washington who mentioned that he had taken a phone call from Mr. Gates, I wish the same gentleman would actually take a phone call from the owner of the major metropolitan newspaper from Seattle, Washington, who actually supports permanent repeal of the death tax. Having said that, I listened to my friend from North Dakota who just spoke. I am mindful that I stood in this same spot on April 13, 2005, on rollcall vote 102 when we, Mr. Cramer and I as lead or chief sponsors of H.R. 8, which was permanent repeal. We had the rollcall vote, and we had an extraordinary bipartisan vote: 272 Members of this body said once and for all it is time to kill the death tax. There were 42, dare I say courageous, Democrats who voted for complete repeal. I hope my words get to those 42, and I urge that same steadfastness on this compromise. It is my understanding there has been some intense political pressure put on my colleagues across the aisle from their leadership, and I certainly hope they would look at this compromise. I would say to my friend from North Dakota, this is a compromise. As we debated this bill back in April 2005, he pointed out that H.R. 8, the complete repeal, did not include a step up in basis. This bill does, a complete step up in basis upon death. The gentleman from North Dakota, when we debated this a year and a half ago, talked about there was no indexing. We fixed that in this bill. There is indexing so that the passage of time and the acceleration or accumulation of assets as they appreciate in value will not suddenly look squarely down the barrel of the death tax bill. And so indexing is part of this. We heard from the philanthropic community as far as opposition to complete repeal of the death tax because there was a concern about charities and foundations not being fully funded. So this compromise accomplishes their goal to make sure that the philanthropic in this country can continue to provide for those churches, charities and synagogues. And yet from the other side of the aisle, I think some folks just dusted off the talking points from a year and a half ago, because this is not the bill we debated then. And my good friend from Georgia, and we are working together on a civil rights bill, to hear the word ``greed,'' or to hear from my friend from California say that only 7,500 families will pay the tax, what about the tens of thousands of American taxpayers, family-owned businesses, that had the same experience that I had of sitting across the mahogany table from their longtime family accountant when my mother passed in 2004? This 514-acre farm that she and my father had built, that my father had worked for nearly five decades, and I am sitting across the table from this family accountant, and he has an old adding machine with the tape on it, and he is punching in values for each of these assets. The acreage per value, the three tractors, the very used combined, the home that I grew up in, the modest life insurance policy, and suddenly as a Member on the Ways and Means Committee, I break out in a cold sweat because I know when he hits the total button, it is either going to be above an arbitrary line that Congress has set or below it. I know that if it is above that line, that I am probably going to have to sell off some of this family business, this farm I grew up on, just to pay the government. What is ironic is if my mother had passed away 4 months earlier, I would have had to have sold a significant part of that farm just to pay the tax. This is a very usable compromise, and I would say the fact we are here, of course, is that there is a determined minority in the other body that has used the Senate's rules and procedures to deny that complete repeal that we have been working for. This is a compromise that deserves bipartisan support. I urge its passage.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, today, my colleague Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota and I are introducing the Renewable Fuels and Energy Independence Promotion Act. We are joined by a bipartisan group of original cosponsors, a complete list of which follows this statement. Rising fuel prices have again focused the public's attention on our nation's energy situation. Gas is at or near $3 a gallon across the country. We are importing over 60% of the oil we use, and this number is expected to grow to over 70% by 2025. In addition to our own increased domestic demand for energy, there is instability in oil- producing areas of the world, and demand for petroleum from China and India will continue to apply upward pressures on the price of oil. Perhaps the one point in the energy debate that garners agreement from both sides of the aisle is that federal policy should strive to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And though there may be ideological differences about how to achieve this end, there is broad, bipartisan consensus that domestically produced renewable fuels must play an integral role in a plan to promote energy independence. Consistent with this common sense premise, we are introducing the Renewable Fuels and Energy Independence Promotion Act. This legislation will provide a permanent extension of the Tax Code's primary renewable fuels tax incentives for ethanol and biodiesel. The idea is to provide a single legislative vehicle for members to show their support of renewable tax incentives and to support a policy that sees a public good in reducing our dependence on foreign oil by boosting our energy independence. If renewable fuels are to displace significant amounts of petroleum as transportation fuel, we must take bold, aggressive steps to achieve this end. History has demonstrated that the federal ethanol tax incentive has accomplished exactly what it is designed to do--promote the production and use of alcohol fuels. The numbers don't lie: According to the Renewable Fuels Association, the United States produced 175 gallons of alcohol fuels in the year 1980. Today, we have an industry with a 4.817 billion gallon production capacity, and another 2.122 billion gallons of production capacity is currently under construction. These numbers prove the tax incentive is working. Previous Congresses and Presidents--both Republican and Democrat--have recognized the benefits from replacing petroleum products with domestically produced renewable fuels. Long-term, consistent, and bipartisan support of ethanol tax incentives have yielded positive results that are helping reduce our dependence on foreign oil. As production increases and new technologies--such as cellulosic ethanol production--are perfected, renewable fuels will play an even greater role in our economy. History has shown us that the tax incentive works, and a long-term commitment to a federal policy that supports renewable fuels will help provide stability and promote growth for those working to expand the use of ethanol in the United States. Congress should also strongly support efforts to promote biodiesel. Biodiesel is a clean-burning, renewable fuel that can be produced from a variety of feedstocks, including soybeans. It can be blended with diesel fuel and burned in conventional diesel engines without modification to the engine. From a policy perspective, biodiesel shares many of the positive characteristics of ethanol. It is environmentally friendly and produced from renewable sources. Its production helps promote economic growth and opportunities in value-added agriculture. And most importantly, expanded use of biodiesel will help make America more energy independent by displacing petroleum products with a renewable fuel source. Though there are distinct differences between biodiesel and ethanol, the situation facing the biodiesel industry today resembles the challenges facing ethanol industry upon its inception. I think we can replicate ethanol's success with biodiesel. If federal policy can increase demand and spur the development of the infrastructure required to utilize biodiesel, the nation as a whole will reap the benefits. The current tax incentive took effect in 2005, and is currently set to expire after 2008. And though things are going well for the industry, and the market is beginning to embrace the fuel, there is more work that must be done. Federal policy should create an atmosphere that rewards entrepreneurs for investing their time and resources to build the production facilities and distribution systems needed to bring biodiesel to market. Providing certainty to the markets and to the industry will help further this progress, and federal policy can help provide this certainty through a long-term extension of the biodiesel tax incentive. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting a strong federal commitment to the development of renewable fuels. Original Cosponsors, Renewable Fuels and Energy Independence Promotion Act: Pomery, Nussle, Peterson, Shimkus, Terry, Boswell, Osborne, Emanuel, Moran (KS), Salazar, Moore (KS), and Herseth.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Hooley- Hulshof-Skelton amendment to increase funding for the HIDTA program. For the past 5 fiscal years, the HIDTA program has essentially been level funded at $226 million. Our amendment increases the fiscal year 2007 amount by $8 million for a new total of $235 million. This increase is offset by reducing the bill's funding level for the National Archives by $8 million, which will leave Archives with an estimated $1.4 million increase over last year's funding level. I would like to thank the gentlelady from Oregon for working with my office on this amendment. I know Oregon has a significant meth problem just like Missouri, and I'm glad that we can work together to combat this horrific drug. I also would like to thank my good friend from Missouri, Mr. Skelton, for his support. Methamphetamine use and production is a serious problem in my home State of Missouri. Since 2002, Missouri has led the Nation in the number of reported clandestine meth labs. These labs are an insidious problem. Not only are these labs highly volatile and prone to explosions, they create environmental hazards and pose significant health risks for those living in surrounding areas. The highly toxic byproduct that meth makers leave in their wake pollutes the environment and groundwater, leaves homes uninhabitable and puts law enforcement and clean-up crews in peril. But most importantly, we must take every step possible to stop the spread of this drug because of the terrible toll it is taking on people in our communities. Sadly, I think it is safe to say that all my colleagues are all too aware of the irreparable harm this drug takes on the physical health of its users. Many of you have seen the before and after photographs of these emaciated, scarred--both mentally and physically--and often toothless users. The recent enactment of the Combat Meth Act was a step in the right direction. This law is a preventive measure designed to limit meth makers access to cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine, which is a common precursor to meth. While I am hopeful that this law will help curb domestic production, we must remain vigilant in our efforts to combat meth trafficking. That is why it is so crucial we continue to provide funding for law enforcement programs, such as HIDTA. This joint endeavor between Federal, State and local law enforcement has been highly effective in combating the trafficking of illegal narcotics. In 2005, Midwest HIDTA, which encompasses Missouri and five other States, arrested more than 9,000 individuals for various drug violations, seized more than 650 pounds of meth, almost 7,000 pounds of cocaine and seized nearly 1,700 firearms. Of these individuals, roughly 1,400 were charged with methamphetamine offenses. This program is a key component of our national drug enforcement policy. HIDTA's greatest strength is that it is a cooperative endeavor among local and national officials who coordinate and devise a strategy to effectively curtail drug trafficking in the U.S. I believe this is a worthwhile amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to support its adoption.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. I appreciate first of all the tone in which the gentleman offers this amendment. In the health care field, the Hippocratic Oath says first do no harm. A colloquialism from the outstate Missouri region that I think is appropriate here is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I can assure my friend from Colorado that the National Geospatial Technical Operations Center in Rolla, Missouri, is a bargain for America's taxpayers and then some. The 160 employees at USGS Rolla are extremely proficient and possess a specialized technical skill. In fact, I heard the word ``obsolete.'' These specialized individuals worked around the clock to produce digital data sets of graphics in the aftermath of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. USGS Rolla continually provides the most current imagery and other geospatial data to the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense. They form useful partnerships with Fort Leonard Wood as well as University of Missouri Rolla. The latter especially focuses on earthquake preparedness, as the gentlewoman from southeast Missouri knows is so important in response to the New Madrid fault. USGS is not obsolete. It does play a critical role in Rolla in disaster response, and is the best and most affordable choice for this functionality.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Central Missouri Eagles Youth Hockey Association for winning one of the Positive Coaching Alliance's 2006 ``Honoring the Game'' Awards. For those of you not familiar with the Positive Coaching Alliance, they are a partnership of coaches, athletes--both current and retired--and community leaders who are dedicated to improving the quality of youth sports programs by offering training workshops and providing resources to coaches and parents that stress sports fundamentals, positive coaching and good sportsmanship. The Positive Coaching Alliance presents an Honoring the Game Award to youth sports organizations and schools that demonstrate excellence in coaching, strong organizational culture and the promotion of good values. Award winners receive an all expenses paid trip to San Francisco where they are recognized for their accomplishments. The Central Missouri Eagles Youth Hockey Association was one of three national winners and the only Midwest team to be honored. The Eagles are composed of 4 coed teams with 60 players, ranging in age from 5 to 18. The Eagles have a motto--``Building Good Athletes and Great Citizens''--and they have certainly lived up to it. Since 2001, all players have participated in a community service project as part of their commitment to the team. This season, the Eagles made numerous outstanding contributions in Mid-Missouri. The Eagles pee-wee team, which includes 11 and 12 year-olds, gathered 500 stuffed animals and 130 backpacks for abused and neglected children. The high school varsity squad also collected more than 400 stuffed animals for sick children at the University of Missouri's Children's Hospital in Columbia. Finally, the mite and squirt teams, which are 5 and 10 year-olds respectively, collected more than 300 cans of food for those in need. The involvement of our youth in activities that build character through community service and athletic competition is a positive experience, and it is refreshing to hear of organizations such as the Eagles that not only promote sportsmanship, good coaching, and having fun but also encourage player development outside the rink. This is exemplified in an excerpt from the Eagles mission statement, which reads as follows: ``The community is best served when the Eagles graduate young citizens enriched by meaningful participation in a disciplined team sport, long after the outcomes of distant games have faded from memory.'' The Eagles are an outstanding organization and should be commended for all their efforts. The coaches and parents who have made this program a success are also deserving of our praise and recognition. I wish the Eagles continued success both on and off the ice and again offer my sincere congratulations for their winning an Honoring the Game Award from the Positive Coaching Alliance.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the trust and confidence the chairman has put in me and allowed me a few moments here today, and I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the larger point, because my soul is in torment. I think that we have turned the clock back to 1996 and 1997, when the entire ethics process was so politicized, where one side would file a complaint against a Member on the opposing side and then that side would file a complaint against a Member on the initiating side. I resent the fact when you have privileged resolutions and Special Order speeches that Members of this body would single out the misdeeds or even criminal actions of a few and seek to indict or tarnish an entire party. I resent that. I stood at that very spot a couple of years ago and was charged as an Ethics Committee member to prosecute one of our colleagues who had committed crimes of corruption, and the Chamber was full like it is, and this body had a very weighty decision, and that was shall we expel our colleague from Ohio. We did with one dissenting vote, and it never crossed my mind that I would take that incident in any sort of short- term political gain and to try to label everyone in Mr. Traficant's party as a culture of corruption. I am troubled by the fact of what we read in the newspaper. It pains me because I know these individuals that these headlines are written about, and yet I believe that the short- term effort political gain is tarnishing the long-term goodwill of this institution. Is the desire for political gain so powerful that Members are willing to indict an entire party? Is that recognition of short-term political gain, do you recognize how irreparably we are harming this institution? The American people deserve a functioning ethics process; the American people deserve what our conscience demands; and, God willing, we will disappoint neither.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I rise today in opposition to the rule before us. The ethics process in this body is broken. In all candor, there is plenty of blame to go around as to why we find ourselves in this situation. We undermine the public's faith in this great institution when we let petty politics erode the very processes meant to preserve the public's trust in Congress. I have met with the Majority Leader on this issue, and I sincerely believe that he has a genuine desire to have an effective, functioning Ethics process in the House. I thank him for his willingness to listen, and I hope we can perhaps address this issue in the future. Having previously served on the Ethics Committee, I firmly believe that the ethics process can work. For the sake of this institution--it must work. And as we begin consideration of the Leadership's ethics and lobby reform package, I will say there are some provisions in the base bill before us that should ultimately be adopted--earmark reform, denying Congressional pensions to convicted felons, enhanced disclosure and improved ethics education are common-sense proposals that I would hope that we can all support. That being said, I cannot support this rule. Ethics reform is incomplete absent changes to improve the enforcement of House rules. My colleague Joel Hefley and I have put forward legislation to strengthen the ability of the Ethics Committee to dispense with ethics matters by expediting the review of these issues and insulating committee members and non-partisan staff from the political pressures that can pollute the ethics process. We do this by giving the Chair and Ranking Member on the committee subpoena power earlier in the investigative process and prohibiting the arbitrary dismissal of Members and technical staff. We also require ethics education for Members and staff, and we dramatically improve disclosure associated with gifts and travel. All of these common-sense reforms would greatly improve the ethics process in the House. We sought to offer our legislation as an amendment to the bill we are to consider today. This proposal was not made in order under the rule. Thus, we are faced with the prospect of passing an incomplete ethics reform package that lacks enhanced enforcement. I think this is a mistake, and for this reason, I must reluctantly oppose this rule.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 2005 St. Charles Crime Stoppers award winners. For those of you not familiar with the program, Crime Stoppers began 30 years ago in the state of New Mexico as a community partnership to help combat crime. This community partnership consists of the local authorities, the press and area residents. Since its inception, Crime Stoppers has expanded to all 50 states, including the District of Columbia, as well as worldwide with programs in Canada, Europe, Australia, parts of Southeast Asia and other locales. In total, there are 1,200 programs worldwide. Oftentimes, when a crime is committed, there is generally a witness who has either seen firsthand the act take place or has knowledge that could lead to the arrest of the perpetrator. Whether it is a mugging, a drug deal or an auto theft, someone in the local community has information. The obstacle local law enforcement face is that many of these tipsters are reluctant to come forward for fear of retaliation by these criminals or for other personal reasons. The solution is Crime Stoppers, which provides witnesses with a safe and anonymous way to relay tips, and therefore avoid having to go on the record and fear reprisals. While Crime Stoppers tips generally do not provide police with the evidence needed to make an arrest, the information does provide police with leads that have ultimately led to a countless number of arrests and prosecutions. Rewards also help reluctant tipsters to come forward with information. I would like to take a moment to highlight the 13 2005 St. Charles award winners. Michael Shipley was honored as the Law Enforcement Officer of the Year. For 14 years, Mike has dutifully served the local community both as an officer with the St. Charles Police Department but also as a mentor and coach to the local youth. He may be best known for his role as head trainer at St. Charles Boxing where he helps kids learn the ``sweet science'' but most importantly stay out of trouble. Kimberly Huffman was honored as the Crime Stoppers Civilian Employee of the Year. After completing the police academy and beginning her work as a police officer, Kim was devastated to learn that she had been diagnosed with a medical condition that would preclude her from fulfilling her day-to-day duties. As a result, Kim resigned as an officer and began to work as a communications specialist with the department, where she excelled. Recently, Kim was ecstatic to learn that her condition had been misdiagnosed and will be able to again pursue her dream of becoming a police officer. The Neighborhood Block Captains Award was presented to Randy and Jan Joeckel for their work in their neighborhood, Hanover Manor. The Joeckel's have diligently worked to maintain a safe and crime free neighborhood by organizing neighborhood watches and community meetings to help keep tabs of developing problems. Jim Trenary Chevrolet was the recipient of the 2005 Crime Stoppers Business of the Year Award. Jim Trenary employees have been extremely active in the local community with various fundraising efforts to help out good causes. Jim Trenary Chevrolet has also been an invaluable tool to the St. Charles Police Department by providing cars to be used for surveillance and sting operations. The 2005 Crime Stoppers Special Recognition Award was presented to Thomas Benton. After retiring from 20 years of service to the St. Charles Police Department, Thomas became the director of security for a local casino. Never one to forget his law enforcement skills, Thomas was able to help local authorities identify two suspects from two different bank robberies using casino surveillance tapes and testimony from casino employees. St. Charles Suburban Journal reporter Jason Lee received the Crime Stoppers Media Relations Award. Jason's reporting on area crime was detailed and thorough and he helped create awareness for the program by including Crime Stoppers information in his articles. Jason also proved to be an asset to the St. Charles Police Department, as he helped out with leads on certain cases. The 2005 Citizen Award was presented to Renee & Derrick Rivers, Colleen Clifford, John Hanley, Susan & Andy Quinones, Ann Walton, Ann Grice and Stacey Nelson. All of the Citizen Award recipients were actively involved in helping apprehending suspects and thwarting future crimes. And in one particular case, an infant's life was saved by arresting a mother for child abuse and endangerment. I commend all these recipients and hope my colleagues share in my admiration for the Crime Stoppers. I encourage all Americans to learn more about this wonderful partnership.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, and I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey. Let me just say to the last speaker, nothing done for middle-income families? Consider that 5 million taxpayers have completely had their income tax liability removed. In fact, they pay no income tax liability to the Federal Government anymore after these pro-growth tax initiatives. Mr. Chairman, I was listening to this debate, and I have to tell you, as someone who was an economist at the University of Missouri Columbia, I remember sitting in those, some would say, boring lectures. I was one of the few that actually enjoyed those lectures. But it used to be thought that if you had the unemployment rate in America certainly at 5 percent, it was considered to be full employment. We have a 4.8 percent unemployment rate. As has been rightly pointed out, inflation has been kept in check. We have homeownership at an almost all-time high. Consider the fundamental underpinnings of this economy. And my friend from South Carolina, whom I have great respect for, I was listening to your discussion as well, and you acknowledged at least there has been some job creation; and you talked about the 8-year period of time under the previous administration, and we are at a 5- year point here as far as this administration. But consider what this President inherited. Certainly everyone can agree, when you put the partisanship aside, if you can, that the economy was slowing in the last 2 years of President Clinton's administration. Then you consider actually what happened as far as the tech bubble bursting, corporate scandals that rocked the confidence of the investor class, the shock that the economy took on September 11. Clearly, we had the horrific human tragedy but, of course, the economic tragedy as well, plus trying to respond to Katrina and the multiple catastrophic events that we have attempted to do. When you consider we have weathered all of those storms, so to speak, and we have unemployment at 4.8 percent, inflation less than 3, homeownership and all this other positive economic news, and the fundamentals are there, I recognize again that the loyal opposition must be loyally opposed and to your political peril that you would talk up the economy. But I would just simply say that in this intensely partisan political time, at least give credit where credit is due. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, today is a great day, a great day of opportunity for this House and really for the American people. I want to echo what was said during the previous debate, particularly by my good friend and colleague Mr. McCotter from the State of Michigan. I want to start by actually announcing a truism that certainly all of us, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, liberals and conservatives can agree with, at least I believe it to be a truism, and it would be simply summed up in two statements: First of all, wealth and prosperity and economic opportunity do not come from government programs or increased Federal spending. Isn't that at least something we can begin to agree upon? The second corollary that again I think is axiomatic that again surely all of us can agree with, is, secondly, the Federal Government cannot tax its way into prosperity. So when you consider where we are, as we try to make these very difficult, tough budget choices, I believe that the budget that we have on the floor today should deserve bipartisan support. I don't expect it, but it should. This fiscal year 2007 budget continues and furthers our plan to strengthen our Nation's most critical programs. It reforms the Federal Government. It spends the taxpayers' dollars wisely. Again, I am certain that as we over the next couple of weeks go to visit with our constituents, those folks that are actually paying the bills, they simply want to be assured that they are getting a dollar's worth of value out of every dollar that they send to the Nation's Capital. This budget does that, and in fact it does it by focusing on a number of priorities. We build upon our Nation's greatest strengths. We continue our successful pro-growth policies to ensure that our economy, that has been doing well, job creation that has been increasing, remains strong and that we continue that vibrant economy. We also accommodate the administration's request to provide whatever is needed in the way of resources to support our troops, again something that I think both sides of the aisle will agree with. We have to continue to keep our Nation's defense and security the strongest in the world, especially at this very critical time. But we will also continue our efforts at controlling spending across the board. We want to restrain the nonsecurity discretionary spending programs. We want to build on our progress to reform and find savings in some of these mandatory programs that are on autopilot, if you will. In addition to furthering those reforms to improve our Federal Government programs, it is time again to begin to reform the budget process itself to better reflect and address how Federal Government dollars are actually spent. When we had our interesting markup last week in the Budget Committee, and I suspect as we heard that night, again, the loyal opposition is likely to provide a somewhat schizophrenic argument. On the one hand they are going to decry the fact that this budget does nothing as far as the Federal deficit and adds to the Federal debt. In other words, they are saying that this budget, we spend too much. And probably then in the second sentence, they will say ``and it doesn't invest enough in certain programs.'' In other words, our friends across the aisle will talk about that the budget spends too much and then it doesn't spend enough. Certainly I would say that covers all the bases. We think that this is a responsible budget. It focuses on our priorities, our strengths. It keeps us on a pro-growth agenda to keep this economy growing, because as we realized back during the days of the 1990s, with the Democratic President and a Republican-led Congress, we were able to make some significant progress. But it wasn't just Congress. It was those hardworking men and women across the country, the laborers, the farmers, the manufacturers, the lumberyard dealers, the tool and die makers, those in the service industry, those folks that punch the clock every day, go to work, play by the rules, pay their taxes and simply want the best out of government that they deserve. We think this budget accomplishes that, and I urge its support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Ray Beck, the presiding city manager of Columbia, MO, as he is retiring this January after 45 years of service to the city of Columbia. Ray has held numerous positions during his tenure with the city of Columbia, the most notable of which is his current post of city manager, which he has held since 1985. The second youngest of six children, Ray Beck was born in St. Elizabeth, MO, on November 9, 1932. After graduating from St. Elizabeth High School, Ray went on to earn both a bachelor's and a master's degree in engineering from the University of Missouri-Columbia. Ray then dutifully served his country as an officer in the US. Army. He is also a graduate of the US. Army Field Artillery School as well as the US. Army Command and General Staff College. Ray always knew that his life would be best spent working as a public servant. As my colleagues here in this Chamber can attest, public service can be an extremely rewarding experience. This calling is the reason why I ran for Congress and am fortunate enough to represent the good people of the Ninth District of Missouri. I am saddened to see Ray leave this position with the city of Columbia, as he has not only been an invaluable resource to the city and myself, he has also become a good friend. His counsel and words of wisdom have certainly aided me as we worked collaboratively for the benefit of Columbia. Columbia looks a lot different today than in 1960 when Ray first started working for the city. Over this time span, Columbia's population has more than doubled to its current size of roughly 91,000 residents. The cityscape continues to evolve as more and more families and businesses flock to the area. With its strong business climate, close-knit community, excellent public schools and ready access to world-class higher education, Columbia has consistently been ranked as one of the most desirable places to live. Ray can look back with pride at this progress. Through his official capacities as city manager, Ray has helped Columbia develop into the vibrant city it is today. During his tenure, Columbia established a city-operated waste removal program, expanded the local parks and recreation services, and implemented a municipally operated transit system as well as many other public works projects. Whether it was working to improve the city's sewer systems, roadways or public utilities, these infrastructure improvements have made Columbia a better place to live and work. Ray accomplished all of this and much more while working with 14 different mayors. Aside from his official duties, Ray has always been actively involved in the community. Through his involvement with the National Recreation and Parks Association, the University of Missouri-Columbia Dean's Engineering Advisory Council, or the Missouri Highways Engineers Association, Ray was always seeking additional resources or contacts that could assist him in his various endeavors for the city. His drive, however, was not only limited to work related activities. Ray should be commended for his good work and involvement with the MU Alumni Association, the United Way and the U.S. Army Retired Officers' Association, just to name a few. When Ray retires this January, I suspect he may shed a few tears-- some of joy and some of sadness. But when he looks back upon his career, I hope he realizes how much his work has improved the lives of those who make Columbia their home. And for that, I am eternally grateful. I know his new priorities will no longer focus either on housing or sewer systems, but spending time with his wife, Dee, his 4 children, his 13 grandchildren and his many friends. I only hope that on the day of my retirement I can look back upon a career as accomplished as his. Ray, I sincerely thank you for your dedication and service to Columbia and the State of Missouri. Congratulations on a well-deserved retirement.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, Federal actions that negatively impact private property inflame the passions of farmers. This is certainly the case for the farmers in my district who make their living along the Missouri River, particularly as it relates to the efforts of some to create an artificial spring rise on the Missouri River. On one side, bureaucrats and fringe special interests--absent sound science or empirical data--want to periodically flood the lower Missouri River basin in the hopes of helping the endangered pallid sturgeon spawn. On the other side, concerned farmers, river stakeholders, Missouri's congressional delegation, Governor Matt Blunt--just to name a few--understand that increasing river flows above the normal river levels during a volatile time of year--one in which farmers are most vulnerable--will cause flooding of adjacent farmland, infrastructure and even entire communities. Those of us on this side of the debate know that only sound science should be used as a basis for our river policy, and actions meant to help wildlife--especially actions that lack scientific merit--should not take precedence over the needs of the people who live and work along the river. Despite this, the Army Corps of Engineers was compelled to include two artificial spring rises in their 2006 operating plan for the Missouri River. While the broad coalition that opposes this misguided spring rise fully intends to continue fighting implementation of these unproven and scientifically questionable spring rises, I want to make the House aware of an issue that we will need to address, should the Corps move forward with spring rises in 2006. For years now, those of us opposed to a spring rise made the commonsense assumption that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Risk Management Agency would serve as a safety net for those adversely affected by the spring rise, providing crop insurance coverage to those harmed by government-induced flooding, such as a spring rise on the Missouri River. Apparently, it is the opinion of some that this is not the case. Just this week, the Risk Management Agency administrator stated in a letter dated December 15, 2005, that the Risk Management Agency ``is prohibited by law from covering crop losses due to a government sanction release of water by the Corps because it does not qualify as a naturally occurring event.'' To me, and to those I represent who live along the river, this policy defies logic. Common sense and basic fairness dictate that crop insurance should cover flood damages caused by a spring rise. From the perspective of a farmer, it adds insult to injury for the Federal Government to cause a flood and then refuse to cover crop insurance damages associated with the Government's actions. I'm not asking for a handout, nor are my constituents. What I am seeking is a flood insurance policy relating to a spring rise that is consistent with the Risk Management Agency's stated mission, to ``promote, support, and regulate sound risk management solutions to preserve and strengthen the economic stability of America's agricultural producers'' and to ``provide crop insurance to American producers.'' Over the coming weeks and months, I will be working with some of my colleagues, like my friends Representative Skelton and Senator Talent to find the best, most efficient solution to this obvious problem. In this effort, I look forward to working with the administration and the committees of jurisdiction in Congress to remedy this situation. Likewise, I fully intend to continue working with like-minded stakeholders and elected officials to stop the flawed spring rise that will cause unnecessary flooding and damage for those along the Missouri River.