Kenny Hulshof

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mark Twain is probably the most famous constituent from my district and I think it was his quote that said, ``There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics.'' I would say probably folks that are back in my district are home from school today because we had snow. Maybe people are taking a break from Christmas shopping and tuning into the debate, and I suspect folks are a little perplexed and a little confused. I do not know what the middle class is in Los Angeles or Cleveland or New York City or Baltimore or Seattle; but I think that at least in my congressional district, if a family is making about $50,000 a year, they probably think themselves to be middle class. The Democratic substitute for that sector of folks making $50,000 or less, the Democratic substitute helps less than 200,000 taxpayers. Less than 200,000 taxpayers are helped by the Democratic substitute that are trying to sit around the kitchen table and pay their bills, wondering how they are going to pay for Christmas presents for their kids. If we extend the capital gains and dividend tax rate, almost 8 million American taxpayers making $50,000 or less, the underlying bill, nearly 8 million taxpayers will be benefited, and I think the choice is clear. Now, let me say to my friend, and he is my friend from Maryland, he talked about failed economic policies. Well, over the last 2 years, since capital gains and dividends reductions were put into law, we have averaged a 4 percent growth to our GDP. 4,400,000 jobs have been added to our economy. Homeownership is up at an all-time high. Government revenues have increased 10 percent a year since the reduction in the cost of capital. The gentleman from Maryland talks about priorities. Earlier we heard from the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and in his usual acerbic way, brought up the specter of politics. The chairman of the DCCC talked about politics with his usual acerbic, and yet what I find interesting as we get close to the conclusion of this debate, there has been a very concerted effort by my friend from Maryland to reach out to the business community in an effort to make some political gains in the 2006 election. After the CAFTA vote, when only 14 of our colleagues on the other side voted for increasing our opportunities for trade. There has been somewhat of a, reported at least, concerted effort to reach out to the business community. This will be an interesting vote because we have with the Democratic substitute a tax increase of $40 billion on businesses. And the underlying bill which, in fact, continues to reduce the cost of capital, so are we going to deny enhanced expensing for farmers and manufacturers? Are we going to tell those laborers and manufacturing companies not to purchase, not to invest, not to expand their plants. That is the choice. And for those again that at least talk to the business community, I think the choice is clear. Reject the substitute and vote for the underlying bill.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of a very special young woman. Tessa Vellek, who hails from my hometown of Columbia, MO, is only eleven years old, but has already accomplished a lifetime of charitable work. Tessa has created a highly successful charitable organization operated by children, known as Euphoria, because, as she stated, ``I wanted an organization where kids could decide how they wanted to help other people. I wanted the community to see that we aren't just followers, but a group of motivated youth seeking to make Columbia a better place.'' Among their many volunteering activities, Tessa and her friends have collected books for schools, shelters and hospitals, gathered food for the homeless and entertained seniors living in retirement communities. Tessa was recently recognized for her efforts. Every year, Nestle honors outstanding young women and men for philanthropic activities in their local community. Out of 158 applicants, Nestle selects 24 young people for their Very Best in Youth award. This year, Nestle picked Tessa as one of the nation's Very Best in Youth. I could not be prouder of this young woman. Not only has she dedicated significant amounts of her free time to helping out those who are less fortunate, Tessa has also amassed an impressive academic record, including earning straight A's, receiving prestigious academic achievements and winning an award in the National PTA Reflections Essay Contest. I have no doubt she will be highly successful in whatever career she pursues, although a budding passion for literature and creative writing could lead her to become a novelist. These volunteering experiences will surely provide Tessa excellent material to draw from in her writing. After seeing the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, Tessa organized a Ride/Walk fundraising event in Columbia to help those in the Gulf Coast affected by the hurricane. Nestle generously agreed to match whatever funds were raised. Out of the $210,000 raised nationwide, Tessa and her Ride/Walk event netted $71,000. The combined $420,000 has been donated to the American Red Cross Hurricane Katrina Relief Fund, which has been invaluable to aiding the plight of storm victims. I am always amazed at the generosity, benevolence and leadership of to day's youth. With people like Tessa and the other Nestle youth recipients, I strongly believe the future of our nation is in good hands. I hope my colleagues share in my admiration of Tessa's good works and encourage all Americans to follow this fine young woman's lead and get involved with chritable works in communities and neighborhoods across our great land.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, today, senior citizens across America can sign up for the new Medicare prescription drug benefit that will save them money on medicines that they need. Many are concerned that the program with its many choices is too confusing, not to mention the mixed signals being sent by this House. Health care can be complicated, but saving money on prescription drugs that senior citizens need should not be. We have a responsibility to help seniors save money, not scare them away from these critical new benefits. Back in 1966, many people thought that the original Medicare hospital insurance plan was too confusing. Then, as now, volunteers were trying to help seniors enroll, even going door to door. Back in 1966, not all seniors answered the door; and as a result, millions failed to enroll in the first round of benefits before the initial sign-up window had closed. ``I think the problems ahead will be vast,'' said Democrat Senator Abraham Ribicoff in the spring of 1966. ``The encouraging fact,'' he added, ``is a willingness to cooperate, despite the earlier strong opposition to Medicare, to make it work. I am sure it will,'' he said. I share Senator Ribicoff's optimism. Older Americans have flooded the Medicare hotline and Web site, and they are attending workshops in America's senior centers in large numbers. It is natural for many seniors to have questions. I urge this House to help our constituents deal with this new benefit.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday next; and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 25, 2005, for morning hour debates.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I rise and have the privilege perhaps on a lighter note to report the outcome of the seventh annual Hoops For Hope basketball game between Washington, D.C.'s elite lobbyists and Members of Congress. Perhaps the broad smile on my face or the gleaming hardware to my left might provide some clues as to the outcome of last night's contest. Seven years ago, Paul Miller of the American League of Lobbyists hit upon the idea that perhaps lobbyists and Members of Congress could move away from the political arena and actually have a contest on the court. While I will report to my colleagues the games have been intensely competitive, the game has had a more noble purpose, and that is to raise money for kids in the inner city of Washington, D.C. Last night, through the generosity of a lot of people, we raised $50,000 from just last night's event, bringing the running total of these several contests to over $200,000. Again, there were a lot of people that deserve a lot of credit for helping make that event a success. Certainly our former colleague, Jack Quinn of New York, who, of course, now has gone over to the lobbyists side. When Jack Quinn was a colleague here and was our coach, he had an undefeated record. Unfortunately, his former colleagues last night marred that record and gave him a defeat; but, again, I appreciate all the work that Jack did, that Paul Miller did. George Washington University was very gracious in hosting the event yet again. I would also like to talk about someone who donated his time, that is, Missouri men's basketball coach Quin Snyder, who is a personal friend who accepted my invitation to come, who came at his own expense, at his own effort, to prowl the sidelines to give some guidance for us. The game got a little close in the waning moments, and it was his presence on the sidelines, maybe working the officials just a little bit, but I really appreciate my friend Quin coming here to Washington, D.C. again for this purpose, his executive assistant Donna, as well as my own executive assistant Eileen, who helped work on the logistics. Finally, this was a bipartisan, bicameral team. When you think that, on paper at least, the universe of lobbyists is about 10,000, and of course, House Members and Senators, there are only 535 of us from which to draw this team, we really on paper should not even be on the same court with these lobbyists; and, nonetheless, thanks to Senators Ensign and Thune, thanks to my colleagues here in the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), we happened to have a winning margin in the double digits. The final score was 44 to 33; and yet the real winners are the kids from the inner city D.C. area who are the beneficiaries of the proceeds that we raised. We had a chance at half-time to personally interact with dozens of these kids. Again, this is a community effort to provide a solution for some kids growing up in some really tough circumstances. So they are the real winners of last night's contest; but even as they are the beneficiaries of those proceeds, we will proudly hang on to this gleaming hardware for yet another year. I thank the Chair for allowing me this time.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim my time for my Special Order at this time.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement, DR-CAFTA, as it will level the playing field for American manufacturers and farmers. The six DR-CAFTA countries, which include the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras, have had preferential access to U.S. markets for approximately 20 years as a result of the Caribbean Basin Initiative, CBI, and the Generalized System of Preferences, GSP, program. Consequently, DR-CAFTA countries have enjoyed a ``one-way street'' of market access where by 80 percent of goods and almost 99 percent of agricultural products enter duty free. Conversely, American exporters have faced tariffs on almost all of the goods exported to the region. It is vital to my home State of Missouri that we continue to expand and open new markets for American farm products. In 2003, 25 percent of Missouri's $5 billion farm cash receipts were attributable to foreign trade. Half of all soybeans and 1 in 5 rows of corn grown in Missouri are destined for foreign markets. Absent DR-CAFTA, American farm exports will continue being subject to tariffs ranging from 35 percent to 60 percent. This puts our farmers and ranchers at a significant competitive disadvantage with our international competitors in these growing markets. It would be foolish to turn our backs on an agreement that removes these sort of punitive barriers to our products. If we pass DR-CAFTA, we will open the doors to six countries where the potential U.S. gain for all agricultural exports is expected to reach $1.5 billion. Put another way, this would mean a near doubling of the U.S. agricultural sales to the region when compared to 2003 levels. It is for this reason that DR-CAFTA enjoys the strong support of the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Soybean Association, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Pork Producers Council, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the USA Rice Federation, the National Association of Wheat Growers and the National Milk Producers Federation, just to name a few. To borrow from Farm Bureau, a vote for DR-CAFTA is a vote for agriculture. There are many critics who erroneously believe that by ratifying DR- CAFTA, the United States is relinquishing our national sovereignty and opening our borders to floods of immigrants. On the contrary, nothing in the DR-CAFTA will preempt the Constitution, current U.S. laws and our sovereignty. Should a contradiction arise between the terms of DR- CAFTA and U.S. law, the U.S. will maintain its right to change domestic laws as it sees fit. Moreover, enactment of DR-CAFTA will have no effect on current immigration laws. Congress will maintain its role in crafting U.S. immigration policy. And in fact, DR-CAFTA will help reduce illegal immigration. As the economic opportunities that accompany free market reforms take a stronger hold in Central America, residents of these nations will have a stake in their future and a strong fiscal incentive to remain in their native country. DR-CAFTA is in our national security interests. Our foreign policy must promote stability and prosperity in Central America. As we saw in the 1980's, instability can give nations who do not share our interests an opportunity to expand their influence in our hemisphere. To promote stability, we should reward democracies that respect human rights and encourage free market economic principles. DR-CAFTA is consistent with this goal. As these evolving democracies continue to grow, we will see their economic viability strengthened, thereby creating jobs and reducing poverty. Some have expressed concern that DR-CAFTA will weaken labor laws, leaving workers in this region without basic protections. This is simply not true. The International Labor Organization (ILO) has reviewed the labor laws and practices of the six DR-CAFTA countries and found them largely in compliance with the ILO's eight core conventions. With the exception of El Salvador--which has ratified six--every other nation covered by DR-CAFTA has enacted the eight core conventions. In fact, if you look at the labor provisions of other recently enacted free trade agreements, such as the Jordan and Morocco agreements, you will find that the DR-CAFTA labor provisions are more stringent and ensure greater protections for workers. Over 95 percent of the world's consumers live outside our borders, and it is in our best interests to pursue a policy that opens these markets to American products. If we fail, we forfeit these markets-- both from an economic and national security standpoint--to our international competitors in Asia and Europe. DR-CAFTA will level the playing field for American farmers and manufacturers and help address an important national security goal. This is a win-win situation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital agreement.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. In the remaining time, first of all, to my friend from Arizona, this is an authorization, not an appropriation. Half of the cost is going to be borne by those that use it, $900 million from the inland waterway trust fund. To my friend from Oregon, the trends on the inland waterway system have gone up except in this area where the locks and dams are crumbling because we are losing the reliability of these antiquated structures that were built in the 1930s with a 50-year useful life. And would they put the same sort of requirement on our national highway system? The fact is that the Inland Waterway Structure and these locks and dams on the Upper Mississippi do have national significance. That is why we must modernize them and reject this amendment.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, to my friend from Oregon I would personally invite him to come out and view these. Some of these locks, built, again, Mr. Chairman, in the 1930s, are standing just out of habit, with bailing wire and duct tape. And the Corps of Engineers has done a magnificent job. Here is the reason, which I did not get to address earlier as far as the trigger that is in the gentleman's amendment. The trigger, the tonnage requirement the gentleman has in his amendment, does not take into account, for instance, the weather. A year ago, because of high water, the river was shut down as far as barge navigation. In low-water years, barges can only fill halfway, for instance. So by putting this trigger mechanism in place, it does not take into account the many variables like weather, like the failure of one of the locks, which I did share with the gentleman, a bad harvest year, fluctuating market prices that may mean farmers choose to store their grain rather than ship their grain. Again, I certainly acknowledge the intent with which the gentleman is bringing this amendment; but, again, because of the age of these locks and dams, it is time for modernization.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise to speak in favor of this long overdue Water Resources Development Act and to applaud the chairman and ranking member for bringing it to the floor, but specifically to speak strongly in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleagues, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). I grew up in the shadow of the levees along the Mississippi River that protect the fertile farm land in southeast Missouri and delivered grain from our family's farm to barge terminals; and those extra cents per bushel have helped keep food on our table and keep that family farm within our family. I am presently privileged to represent Missouri's ninth district which includes about 120 miles of the Mississippi, four of the locks in question, several important environmental projects, including mitigation and habitat restoration. Let me echo what the gentleman who just spoke, my friend from Arkansas, said, that it is a little bit frustrating for those of us who know and understand and appreciate the character and the many facets of the Mississippi River to deal with an amendment that has been offered by those whose personal knowledge of locks and dams is a seat on a plane 30,000 feet above these very structures which maintain the navigable waterway of the Mississippi River. When the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) was a signatory to a letter to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) back in March of 2004 urging a line item appropriation to dredge the Columbia River channel from 40 to 43 feet, I did not object because the gentleman should know his own district and how it affects his infrastructure in his area. Let me just address some of the concerns that have been raised by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). First of all, I have been hearing that this amendment by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is a compromise. The underlying bill is a compromise. There are 29 locks and dams on the upper Mississippi River. We are talking about modernizing five of those locks on the upper Mississippi along with two on the Illinois River. We have heard the discussion about this being a costly boondoggle, that the cost-benefit analysis does not justify modernization of locks and dams. Here are some facts. First of all, I did not hear from the gentleman offering the amendment that we should have a cost-benefit analysis for the environmental restoration portion of the bill. Secondly, as the chairman pointed out in his opening remarks, $900 million, half of the cost of modernizing the locks and dams, is already being borne by the barge owners and operators with this 20-cent-per- fuel excise tax that is now going into the Inland Waterway Trust Fund. What is interesting, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that 40 percent of the funds in that trust fund have been placed there by the upper Mississippi barge owners and operators, and yet only about 15 percent of the trust fund is used on projects that help those operators on the upper Mississippi. It is not the first time those of us in the Midwest helped subsidize infrastructure across the country. Highway 89 that cuts through the gentleman from Arizona's (Mr. Flake) district, those of us in the Midwest helped subsidize the maintenance of that highway. Just as the light rail project the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has pushed for, about 48 cents out of a dollar is borne by the passengers of the light rail system. We pick up the rest of the cost. I think that is appropriate just as the users of the upper Mississippi are paying for half the cost. Let me say on the issue of traffic decreasing, because the gentleman talked about the $900 million that has been invested in modernization already. Even with those investments, these 1930s facilities, we are losing 10 percent a year and have for the last 10 years, 10 percent reliability. And so the fact is if a project is broken, it is time to fix it. You do not wait to see if it gets better. Traffic has been increasing on the inland waterway system everywhere except in the upper Mississippi because of the declining condition of these locks and dams. It is time we modernize them. I urge a vote for the water bill and a strong vote ``no'' against the Flake-Blumenauer amendment. I thank the gentleman for bringing forth a WRDA bill that balances all needs. I also want to thank both Chairman Young and Chairman Duncan for honoring my request and including the modernization of seven locks on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway in this legislation. I urge all members to support the modernization of these locks and oppose the Flake-Blumenauer amendment that would ensure that the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers remain gravel roads in a world filled with interstates. No one would say that our Nation's trucks should transport materials on roads built in the 1930s. But we are forcing the barges on the Mississippi River to use locks built in that far-gone era. Doing so limits our access to export markets and increases the load on our already over-burdened road and rail system. Today we will hear supporters of this amendment say that river traffic has decreased; this is true but is very misleading. Barge traffic has decreased only in the section of river that contains these woefully outdated and undersized locks. When you look at stretches of the river that are unencumbered by 1930's technology, barge traffic is increasing. Why? Because this section is plagued by delays and unscheduled maintenance closures, in fact, the capacity of the system is decreasing by 10 percent per year because of these closures. Thus, shippers are forced to stay away from this section of the river and must use road or rail to transport their crops. Doing so increases transportation costs by almost 30 percent. When something is broke you don't wait to see if it will get better on its own, you fix it before the problem gets worse. Yet Congressmen Flake and Blumenauer publicly say they want to wait and see if the situation improves. In reality they are using these costly lock delays and the shippers' regrettable but understandable lack of confidence in 1930's technology to achieve their goal of eliminating this project, saying, ``If they come we might build it.'' Additionally, the Flake-Blumenauer amendment contains no exceptions for droughts, floods or other factors outside of anyone's control that could impact the amount of cargo transported during their three-year window. Quite frankly, acts of God should not preclude us from helping farmers secure export markets. Nor should we be forced to justify this project during a very small window of time; we need to look long term. The long-term effects of inaction more than justify the project. If we allow the delays at our outdated locks to continue, farmers will lose $562 million per year, the Nation would lose more than 20,000 jobs and our trade deficit will increase by $264 million. Moreover, corn exports will be decreased by 68 million bushels per year, soybean exports by 10 million per year, all before the year 2020. And every day we delay is a day where more cargo is taken off of the river and put on trucks and rails. These are dangerous options for all Americans, dangerous to the driving public because every tow and barge that is taken off the river is replaced by 870 trucks on our highways, increasing the likelihood of accidents by 5,967 percent. And dangerous for the shipper because every barge is replaced by 225 rail cars that even the rail industry says it does not have, creating a situation where farmers will be able to grow crops and even sell crops but never be able to ship these crops. If you support trade, providing farmers access to as many markets as possible and oppose adding 4 million semi trucks to our overcrowded roads, come join me and the American Farm Bureau, the Carpenters Union, the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, the National Corn Growers, and the American Soybean Association--to name a few--in our opposition to the Flake-Blumenauer Amendment.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, since its beginnings in Ancient Egypt and the first Olympic Games in Greece, boxing has evolved into a multifaceted sport and industry spanning the globe. Figures such as Jack Dempsey, Rocky Marciano and Muhammad Ali have captivated the American public and become icons in our sports culture. Mr. Speaker, the City of Moberly, Missouri, located in my district, holds a unique place in boxing's rich history, and I rise today in recognition of that history. There are few names that are as synonymous with boxing as Jack Dempsey, who rose to greatness as a heavyweight prizefighter in the 1920s. After becoming the world heavyweight champion, Dempsey made an appearance in Moberly in 1922. While training for bouts in 1917, Jack Dempsey approached Jacob Golomb, a small New York sporting goods retailer and manufacturer, and asked if he could make protective headgear for sparring. Golomb fulfilled that request and cemented his role in boxing, as his company, Everlast, would become the premier manufacturer of boxing gloves, equipment and apparel. When Dempsey won the heavyweight title, he sported Everlast gloves and shorts. Since then, the list of acclaimed fighters who have donned Everlast gear is too numerous to list here. Although headquartered in New York City, Everlast's production facilities are today located in Moberly, Missouri. John Ratzenberger's Made in America, a TV show on the Travel Channel, recently produced a segment on the Everlast plant in Moberly. Ratzenberger visited the 300,000 square foot facility and learned how boxing gloves are made and a little about what it takes to be a fighter. If you have not seen this episode or the Made in America series, I would highly recommend it. From hosting high-profile boxing events in the 1920's to making the gear that outfits today's champions, the city of Moberly is rightfully proud of its boxing heritage and the important role it plays in boxing today. For this reason, I rise to recognize Moberly's valuable contribution to the sport of boxing and to bring this to the attention of my colleagues.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I rise and ask my colleagues in the House to support this resolution. In addition to the kind words that already have been mentioned, FarmHouse had a unique, but a humble, beginning in my home town of Columbia, Missouri. Like many social organizations at the University of Missouri campus, there were few students back in 1905 to draw from for its members. Its purpose, its objective back then was really not clearly defined or understood. And so it attracted little attention. It was not the result of any sort of a crisis among ag students, but was rather the result of a need for recognition of a small and subordinate and specialized group in the area of higher education. The University of Missouri College of Agriculture was established back in 1870 as part of the land grant system. A lot of my colleagues here still to this day defend mightily the land grant system. It was a small division of the ag school back in 1905 within the University of Missouri. There were less than 100 students. It was not really held in the same high regard or high esteem as the school of law or the school of medicine, and most of those students were all farm-reared boys. But a rather close relationship developed among this group of 35, a lot of them attended the same class, everyone knew each other, and there developed among them this sense of camaraderie. So as an outgrowth of this fellowship and the friendships that were formed, there were three men, D. Howard Doane, Henry P. Rusk and Earl Rusk, who conceived this idea of forming an agricultural club in order to perpetuate this congenial association. In fact, as history has it, at least as we tell it, they began to have this discussion on a Sunday afternoon at a YMCA Bible meeting. So it was desirable that they were going to make this group, and they proposed to rent a house and live together, and this was in the spring of 1905. And from the diary of Mr. Doane comes the following record: ``At the close of my freshman year, there was organized a club of farmers, principally from the freshman class, to run a clubhouse to be known as the FarmHouse. When school opened in September, only seven of the group returned.'' I mentioned Mr. Doane and the two brothers Rusk, and the others that joined them were Robert F. Howard, Claude B. Hutchison, Henry H. Krusekopf, and Melvin E. Sherwin. Back now to Mr. Doane's diary: ``They took the house on their hands and turned it into a regular rooming and boarding house. Those seven fellows were the best bunch that ever got together. During the whole year they managed the house without one single disagreeable incident.'' I am tempted to go into a parenthetical aside regarding this body, but I will choose not to do that. And then finally from Mr. Doane's diary: ``Many a night this dear old bunch assembled with gravest doubts assailing them and wondering if it was all worth while.'' Well, Mr. Doane, in the humble opinion of this FarmHouse alum, it was indeed worthwhile. Thirty chapters across the country, including Canada, with a list of notable alumni, including just a smattering of those: former Kansas Governor, John Carlin; George Beadle, who received a Noble Prize in medicine and genetics back in 1958; Pulitzer Prize winner Ezra George Thiem; and Hall of Fame athletes Ed Widseth from Minnesota and legendary Missouri Coach Don Faurot; 49 past national FFA officers; one former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture; and entertainers Leroy Van Dyke, Michael Martin Murphey, and Pat Green. More than 24,000 men have become members of FarmHouse Fraternity. And while the others do not necessarily hold a title, each has made his own mark within the community and the family in which they live, putting into action the FarmHouse motto: ``Builder of Men.'' I was honored to be invited to speak to an event back in Columbia, Missouri, over 530 participants, back in April of this year. And I would ask that this body, that the House of Representatives today recognize the 100th anniversary of FarmHouse Fraternity and commend the fraternity and its members for a century of service. Miss McMORRIS. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, on May 19, 2005, during consideration of H.R. 2361 the Fiscal Year 2006 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, I inadvertently recorded my vote as ``No'' on the amendment offered by Mr. Beauprez to increase funding for Wildland Management (Rollcall Vote No. 195). It was my intent to record my vote as ``Aye'' on this amendment.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, on May 20th, East Central College in Union, Missouri will watch with pride as young men and women receive their diploma and enter the working world. Commencement is a joyous time filled with celebrations and happiness, but also sadness and trepidation as students begin their adult lives and careers in new cities, often leaving friends behind. East Central College's upcoming graduation will be no different. There will, however, be one major difference from previous graduations--it will mark the last time that Dr. Karen Herzog presides over her students in her official capacity as the college's President. As such, I rise today to honor Dr. Karen Herzog for her distinguished academic career and commitment to higher education. Dr. Herzog grew up in Carthage, Missouri and studied at Ozark Christian College in nearby Joplin where she earned a B.A. in literature. She subsequently earned a master's degree in American literature from Kansas State University and later a Ph.D. in higher education policy from the University of Kansas. Dr. Herzog started her academic career at the Metropolitan Community College District system located in the greater Kansas City area where she taught English. After fifteen years, Dr. Herzog moved into an administrative role at the college. She rose through the ranks and eventually assumed the position of Associate Vice Chancellor of Education. In 1999, East Central College offered Dr. Herzog the Presidency, which she accepted. For the past six years, Dr. Herzog has made an indelible mark on the students of East Central College and residents of Franklin County. She has chaired the Franklin County Economic Development Council and been a member of the Franklin County Family and Children Mental Health Board, the Washington 353 Redevelopment Corporation and the Union Rotary Club. While at East Central, Dr. Herzog established a centralized Learning Center for students, earned full ten-year accreditation from the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and attained record enrollment levels. Dr. Herzog has clearly had a positive impact on the community, on East Central College, and most importantly, on the students that have received a quality education as a result of her efforts. It has been a pleasure working with Dr. Herzog and I wish her continued success in her future endeavors. Her dedication to Missouri's students is exemplary and deserving of commendation. For these reasons, it is my pleasure to rise and share her accomplishments with my colleagues.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I rise, gratefully, in support of this resolution, and applaud you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing it to come to the floor for consideration. My colleagues, there are those beyond this venerable hall who would hope that this body would erupt in partisan ethical warfare. There may even be a handful of colleagues who have threatened ethical retaliation against another Member on the other side. There are others that, with tonight's vote, will try to claim some moral or ethical superiority because of the vote; and still others who will continue to seek some political advantage by taking the alleged improprieties of one Member and trying to tarnish the rest of that Member's party. To those that I have described, you need not heed my words. But for the vast majority of my colleagues that I have not described, that are fair and decent and honorable and honest, I say to you, we need a functioning ethics process. Matter of fact, let me rephrase that. This institution requires a credible ethics process. The American public deserves that credible ethics process. The integrity of this institution is at stake. The memory of those who have served, those that are going to come after us who serve, this resolution sets us back on the correct path. I urge its adoption.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Let me first say, Mr. Speaker, how much I appreciate my friend from North Dakota as we have done this in a number of sessions of Congress, and I appreciate the tone, and he is a friend of mine, and I have a lot of respect for him and the intent with which he comes to this debate. Let me answer a couple of points that have been raised in particular, first of all, about the tax simplification. Tax day is 2 days away, and I am sure taxpayers, in particular small businesses and family farmers, would appreciate anything that we can do to simplify our tax laws, and I would submit that permanent repeal of the death tax does just that. In fact, H.R. 8 is one simple paragraph, and it reads as follows: ``Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall not apply to title V of such Act.'' Basically, we repeal the sunset. Now, again, the gentleman from North Dakota's (Mr. Pomeroy) substitute, I counted, and I hope I am counting correctly, but 40 subparagraphs and directing accountants and the like to this subparagraph or that particular paragraph. The reason that we are here is because of complicated and arcane Senate budget rules, called the Byrd rule, that we phase out the death tax for one single year. In 2010, it magically disappears, and then on January 1 of 2011 it springs back to life, and the uncertainty, how would one as an estate planner advise a client when the tax is gone today and comes back again in the very next year? By making death tax repeal permanent, we give taxpayers the certainty they need to make those long-term financial decisions. The form itself, the blank form I am holding here, Form 706, is 40 pages in length for the estate tax return, 40 pages in length, and it comes with a handy dandy 30-page instruction booklet. So when one is talking about simplification, what better simplification would there be than ripping these pages dealing with the estate tax completely out of the Internal Revenue Code? Lastly, when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of it, whether or not the Pomeroy substitute, and again, in the effort to pursue the American dream, whether those businesses are going to be shielded by the Pomeroy substitute or not shielded, the fact is that as long as the tax is on the books, as long as Congress draws some line in the sand, and that is all we are doing with the substitute, is just some arbitrary line, we are still going to have those family businesses that are going to be taking some of their resources and these convoluted schemes, legal, but efforts to avoid the tax. Again, we hear a lot about these very high-profile individuals who have been successful. I mean, this is the land of opportunity, is it not? I would submit to my colleagues that the billionaires and the top of the Fortune 500 lists, those folks have a stable full of lawyers and accountants to create this intricate estate plan to thwart the estate tax. Not so, and I go back to the original discussion, that small family in Columbia, Missouri, the Eiffert family who spends $52,000 a year just to buy term life insurance because they might have to face the estate tax. Under the current law, or probably even under the gentleman from North Dakota's (Mr. Pomeroy) substitute, there is no certainty for families like the Eiffert family. So I salute my colleague. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), again a colleague of mine on the Committee on Ways and Means, said, why are not we debating real reform? Interestingly, there is a lot of discussion. I am not here to advocate one particular tax reform proposal because we have got this blue ribbon panel that is happening and looking at various options. There is a lot of talk about the consumption tax, and yet it is notable that, while there may be support for the idea of a general consumption tax, the death tax, by contrast, is a tax on nonconsumption. We talk a lot, too, about sin taxes. Why can we not put taxes on alcohol or on cigarettes and the like and whether or not that generates support among certain groups. This death tax is a tax on virtue. In other words, if you work hard, you play by the rules, if you scrape together your savings, and, again, we as an industrialized Nation, not only do we have even under the Pomeroy substitute a 47 percent death tax rate which would be the second highest in the world, but the fact is that we are not very good at savings and investments. In fact, if you are looking at your 1040 right now, look at line eight because it says if you have been thrifty and you are able to generate a little interest income, guess what, Uncle Sam says put this amount here because we are going to take our bite of the apple. Permanent repeal of the death tax actually rewards virtue. Let me just paraphrase a column recently, actually it was some years ago but I think republished recently by Professor Edward J. McCaffery. He is a professor who says this: ``As a committed liberal myself, I used to believe that the gift and estate tax was essential to a just society. But as a former estate planner and a scholar in both law and economics, I confess that I was mistaken. The gift and estate tax is quite simply a bad tax, even, and maybe especially, when viewed from a liberal perspective.'' Professor McCaffrey goes on and says, ``This is not a supply-side argument but a moral one. People who die with large amounts of wealth have done three good things for society. They have exercised their talents, rather than living a life of leisure. They have saved, contributing to a common pool of capital whose benefits manifest, for example, in lower interest rates, inure to all. And they have refrained from spending all of their wealth on themselves.'' In fact, Professor McCaffrey across the Capitol some years ago I think before the Senate Finance Committee said, to paraphrase Scripture, the reason he changed his mind, I was blind but now I see. If this comes from an unrequited liberal that the estate tax, the death tax, is a bad tax, then I would suggest to all of my colleagues here that it is time to permanently and completely repeal the tax. Finally, I would say to my friend again, because there has been some discussion about creating a new tax, as the gentleman knows, the intent of H.R. 8, the underlying bill, is to help make it easier to pass a family business from one generation to the next. As we have heard from nonpartisan groups, 70 percent of family businesses do not make it to a second generation, 87 percent of family businesses do not make it to a third generation, and often the reason cited is because of this very confiscatory punitive tax called the death tax. The fact is that under H.R. 8, if it were to pass and become the law of the land, the tax rate imposed at death on a lifetime of work and thrift is zero percent. Under my friend's substitute amendment, the rate imposed would be locked in at 47 percent. Now I mentioned my personal experience, and I am running our family farm. If a surviving heir chooses not to farm and then makes the conscious decision to dispose of assets, then that is a taxable event, but that is a purposeful decision made by the heirs of that family business owner. It is not the Federal Government requiring the death of a family member to be a taxable event. So I would simply say to all of my colleagues that death should not be a taxable event, period. Under the underlying bill of H.R. 8, it would no longer be a taxable event. Under the substitute from my friend, individuals above an arbitrary line drawn by this body, death would continue to be an event that triggers the Federal death tax. That is why prominent organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Business, American Farm Bureau Federation and a host of other small business coalition members, representing the interest of small businesses and family farms across the country, support H.R. 8 and oppose my friend from North Dakota's substitute. I urge a ``no'' on the substitute and a ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Miss McMorris), a newly elected Member from the State of Washington. Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House today on this very important piece of legislation, the repeal of the death tax and making it permanent. The repeal of the death tax is one of the first bills that I was honored to place my name on as a cosponsor. Growing up on a family farm in eastern Washington, I have seen firsthand the negative impacts the death tax has on our families and our businesses. One of my top priorities in Congress is to grow jobs and expand the economy in the Pacific Northwest. I believe that the repeal of the death tax will help accomplish this goal, especially for the farmers and small businesses in my district. The death tax costs thousands of jobs each year; and by repealing this unnecessary tax, jobs will be created and many small business owners will be able to add workers to their payrolls. As a Member who represents a significant farming sector, I have seen the death tax destroy some family farms. Without a doubt, death taxes hurt our farmers and our ranchers by forcing family farms to sell land, buildings or equipment needed to operate their business in order to pay for this excessive tax. Some family farmers have had to take out a second mortgage on their home to pay for the tax. When farms and ranches shut down, so do the businesses they support, leaving many out of work and leading to a depressed rural economy. The time is now to end the death tax. I support the passage of H.R. 8 in order to end this unjust, unfair, and inefficient tax burden on our families, businesses and especially our farming communities.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the gentleman's props, I would commend to him for his reading leisurely ``The Economics of the Estate Tax: An Update,'' a Joint Economic Committee study dated June 2003 which in essence states the estate tax raises very little, if any, net revenue because of distortionary effects of the estate resulting in income tax losses roughly the same size as the revenue collected. Secondly, estate taxes force the development of environmentally sensitive land. Through 2001, 2.6 million acres of forest land were harvested and 1.3 million acres were sold every year to raise funds to pay the estate tax. Regarding his criticism on philanthropy, the estate tax according to the Joint Economic Committee study, the estate tax may actually be one of the greatest obstacles to charitable giving as estate taxes crowd out charitable bequests. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, and of course, as we have had a lot of unforeseen circumstances that have occurred, as was mentioned earlier, Iraq and Afghanistan. And let us hope and pray that as permanent repeal occurs, if it occurs, in the outyears that we will not be in that war on terrorism. But I would say to my friend, and I appreciate the question, but he also mentioned the Department of Agriculture, and lest, Mr. Speaker, anyone wonder who those agricultural groups are that represent farm families across America, I would place into the Record a letter from said groups. In essence, the letter reads as follows: The groups listed below support permanent estate tax repeal, ask for this body to vote for H.R. 8, and the letter goes on to say, individuals and families own virtually all of the farms and ranches that dot America's rural landscape. Death taxes threaten the transfer of these operations to the next generation of food and fiber producers. Sincerely, Alabama Farmers Federation, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Sheep Industry Association, the American Soybean Association, Farm Credit Council, National Association of Wheat Growers; to my friend from North Dakota, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council, National Grain Sorghum Producers, National Milk Producers Federation, National Potato Council, USA Rice Producers Federation, U.S. Rice Producers Association, and the Western Peanut Growers Association. April 13, 2005. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: The groups listed below support permanent estate tax repeal and ask you to vote for H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005. Individuals and families own virtually all of the farms and ranches that dot America's rural landscape. Death taxes threaten the transfer of these operations to the next generation of food and fiber producers. In 2001, Congress recognized the harm that death taxes cause family businesses and voted to repeal this onerous tax. Unfortunately, repeal scheduled for 2010 is temporary and sunsets after only one year. Congress should act now to make death tax repeal permanent. Please show your support for permanent death tax repeal by voting for H.R. 8 when the bill reaches the House floor this week. Sincerely, Alabama Farmers Federation, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Sheep Industry Association, American Soybean Association, Farm Credit Council, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council, National Grain Sorghum Producers, National Milk Producers Federation, National Potato Council, USA Rice Federation, US Rice Producers Association, Western Peanut Growers Association. Mr. Speaker, to my friend from South Carolina, I am not sure if any of those groups happen to represent farm families in his district, but I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect my friend from Tennessee and I trust he will bring that passion to the floor when we have our discussion on our spending bills. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), a newly elected Member.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) as he mentions Iraq and Afghanistan that the budgetary impact of H.R. 8 is really not felt until the year 2011 and beyond. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris). (Ms. HARRIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.