Kenny Hulshof

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago, the only President of the United States from the show-me State, Harry S. Truman, set a goal for our Nation to give every American with a disability the chance to play a full part in strengthening our Nation and sharing in the greatest satisfaction of American life, that being independence and the right to self-supporting and self-reliance. But, yet, even as we continue to enjoy low unemployment, as the gentleman from Maryland mentioned at the very beginning of this debate, three out of four individuals with disabilities remain unemployed. The vast majority want to go back to work. How often do we have a segment of the population that comes to Washington to say we want to be taxpayers? Yet, as many Members have taken to the floor to talk about constituents, a constituent of mine, Rich Blakely from Columbia, Missouri, the former executive director of the Services for Independent Living, came to our committee at his own expense to talk about the barriers that are in place. For instance, going to vocational rehabilitation, the question is, ``Can you go back to work?'' The answer to that one government agency is, ``Yes, I can.'' Yet, in order to qualify for SSDI or SSI benefits, when that agency asks, ``Can you work?,'' the answer has to be ``no.'' So there is inconsistency even among these agencies as we try to help these individuals regain their independence. Now, I think this bill is a major step forward, especially considering the ticket to work bill that we had on the floor last year. We made some strong concessions. It happens that October is National Disability Employment Awareness Month, and I can think of no better way to celebrate that event than to pass this ticket to work bill. I urge its adoption.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio).

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I was detained in the very same meeting of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct during the vote on the Dingell legislation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. My colleague is absolutely right, and I thank him for those remarks, and I am sure the people of New Jersey appreciate it. Our hearts do go out to victims in other States. New Jersey has been hard hit. Many States in the East have been hard hit. As the flood waters receded across New Jersey, the death toll from Hurricane Floyd increased in our State. Surging flood waters caused hundreds of millions of dollars of damage and claimed four lives. As officials struggled to cope with the thousands of refugees and families left to deal with contaminated drinking water and total devastation, in many cases, of their homes, we also have to deal with highway closures and lingering phone and power outages, which interfere with the ability to deal with the problems that families face. Eight of the counties hardest hit by Floyd have been declared federal disaster areas, including three counties in my district in Central New Jersey, including Middlesex, Mercer, and Somerset Counties. In a number of places the flooding exceeded the boundaries of the hundred-year flood. Over the past few days, I have seen firsthand the damage that the hurricane has caused. In Lambertville, for example, I toured the middle school, where water had flowed through the school. Mud covered the floors. There were floating school supplies and overturned and floating desks through the building. Officials there told me they expect the cleanup effort to cost up to $1.5 million just in that one school. In Branchburg, I have watched as families shoveled mud from their living areas, their shops, their basements, their belongings ruined, and homes permanently damaged. There was water everywhere but none to drink, as flooding contaminated drinking water sources. Still many people are without drinking water. They are advised to boil water. More than 200,000 residents in my district were found without water. The scenes of devastation, however, did bring forth tails of heroic rescues. Many men and women devoted many exhausting hours to the rescue efforts, and they are to be commended. In this time of devastation, it gives us some comfort to think of the men and women of New Jersey who thought first of their neighbors. This inextinguishable spirit of the citizens of New Jersey has burned brightly in the days of this disaster, and it will continue to burn brightly. But that will not restore the damage caused by Hurricane Floyd. There will be time in the coming weeks to talk about lessons learned from the flooding, and there are lessons to be drawn from this, lessons about the effect of loss of open space on flooding. But for now our attention goes to assisting the victims of the flood and to extolling the work of the rescue and repair efforts of those involved in those efforts. While the federal disaster declaration is a substantial step forward in helping central New Jersians start to put their lives back together, more assistance is necessary. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting a legislative package to provide relief to the citizens that have been hurt and whose lives have been turned upside down by Hurricane Floyd.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, due to travel delays, I was not present for rollcall votes 405, 406 and 407 on September 13, 1999. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 405, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 406 and ``aye'' on rollcall vote 407.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. To my good friend from Connecticut and to the gentleman from Massachusetts, we have been laboring today under the old adage that ``If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.'' Yet, those of us who support the Hutchinson substitute, we believe we are engaged in an exercise of futility. The definition of ``insanity'' is taking exactly the same action and expecting a different result. The fact is that the Shays-Meehan bill is not going to pass in the Senate. The stage is set. The lights are up. The actors are ready. And they have handed us the same script. And guess what? The ending is the same. Now, I want to respond to two consistent themes that have been heard throughout the day. I heard one colleague that suggested that in order to accomplish reform we are going to have to navigate a mine field of poison pills, as if every legitimate substitute not named ``Shays- Meehan'' somehow deserved a scarlet letter. Well, Mr. Chairman, there are some of us who are really sincere reformers who choose not to kneel at the altar of every bill that has been anointed by some in this House or some in the Beltway. I think that the refusal to budge or compromise on the underlying bill has poisoned the well of campaign reform. The gentleman from Pennsylvania spoke earlier about the bipartisan majority in the last debate. Yes, there were 250 new votes. I was one of them. I reluctantly supported Shays-Meehan last time because it was the only train leaving the station. Quite frankly, if we were honest with ourselves in this body, I would think that we would agree that there were probably some jail-house converts last time who knew they were going to get a free vote on reform because the bill was going to fail in the Senate. Regarding the merits of the Hutchinson alternative, it does ban soft money at the federal level. It prohibits States from transferring soft money. First, it allows States to decide for themselves and their own State legislatures whether or not to ban soft money at the State level for party building or get-out-the-vote efforts. But there is a firewall that is built between the State campaigns and the federal campaigns. Some have declared this some sort of a loophole. I respectfully disagree. In Missouri, if they run for State-wide office, they can accept business contributions or corporate donations; and yet that money cannot be transferred to a federal candidate running for office. In the same way, the Hutchinson bill sets up an impenetrable firewall. And so we ban soft money at the federal level. To the gentlewoman who spoke earlier about indexing the caps for inflation, if we ban some money at the federal level, I believe we have to index and raise the amount of money available in hard dollars. I submit, Mr. Chairman, it is easy for newspaper editors or broadcast journalists across this country to wrap their arms around an extreme type of campaign reform because to them speech is free. And yet, if we want to refute or rebut a poisonous editorial, it costs us precious campaign dollars. Without indexing limits for inflation, two things happen: either wealthy candidates will fund their own extravagant campaigns for office, or incumbents get the benefits of the present campaign zone. Because, as the gentleman from Montana pointed out, we have the ability to have name recognition or we have the ability of franked mail and the advantages of the incumbency. For those of us who first ran unsuccessfully for Congress as a challenger, we need to keep the playing field level for challengers and incumbents alike. I think the Hutchinson bill is the best effort regarding that alternative. Finally, I believe it is time that we send a new piece of legislation to the Senate. This act takes a realistic and practical approach to reforming our Nation's campaign laws. I urge its support. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1867, The Campaign Integrity Act of 1999, introduced by my colleague Representative Hutchinson. It is important to remember this legislation is the product of a bipartisan group of newly-elected Members last Congress. Through hearings and testimony, this legislation is a compromise approach to reforming our federal campaign finance structure. This core group of reformers stand before this chamber with an important alternative to the Shays-Meehan legislation. In discussions with many of my colleagues and after reading the bills handicaps in several news articles, one item stands as a striking difference with this years debate on campaign finance reform. This debate lacks the drama presented by last year's discussion. The radical and rarely used tool of the discharge petition has been rendered ineffective and the outcome of this debate on campaign finance reform seems all too certain. With the lights dimmed and the pre-debate rhetoric toned down, the House plans to run the same play with the confidence of the American people hanging in the balance. During last year's debate I challenged my colleagues to support the ``freshmen bill'' because it cut a swath down the middle of the campaign finance reform debate. Members could receive the same accolades from editorial boards across the country and their constituents for banning soft money, improving disclosure, and dealing with issue advertisements without harming the Constitution's provision for free speech. These three key elements continue to be the mantel of most campaign finance reform supporters. However, it is incumbent upon us today to determine how these fundamental provisions of reform can make their way past the Senate and to the President's desk. Passing campaign finance reform measures out of the House, which we know will fall upon the same fate as it did last Congress in the Senate, does very little toward reforming the current inadequacies of how federal campaigns are financed. Mr. Chairman, we risk permanent damage to the faith of our individual constituents who feel their voices go unrecognized in the current political process. Passing Shays-Meehan and voting down the incremental but substantive strategy the Hutchinson bill provides will do little more than feed the flames of cynicism that Congress will never enact legislation to address the shortcomings of funding federal campaigns. My fellow colleagues, it is interesting that on the day we consider campaign finance reform that we are in the thick of the annual appropriations process. I know that when I consider my vote on any one of the 13 appropriations' bills I begin by asking myself if I can support the compromise reached in the legislation before the House. Are there provisions within the bill that I find objectional enough to withhold my support of the overall legislation? No one gets everything they would like in each appropriations bill and the appropriations process clearly becomes a work of compromise. I ask my colleagues to use this same strategy in this campaign finance reform debate. Put aside your pride of ownership so that we may get substantive campaign finance reform that can pass the Senate and become law. Congress has been sold a bill of goods that there is only one way you can be for reform of the current financing systems supporters of the underlying bill have placed the scarlet letter of a ``poison pill'' on every other alternative. The only thing being poisoned is the well of effective campaign finance reform that is the end result of passing the Shays- Meehan bill and making it increasingly unlikely that Congress will enact meaningful reform. Adopting a strategy that simply tries the same thing twice is something Congress rarely does because it often doesn't work. I hope every constituent and newspaper editors ask the question; ``Who are the real reformers?'' when we continue to try a failed strategy. A martyr's death does nothing to help restore confidence in our political system. It's time to send a new piece of legislation to the United States Senate. The Campaign Integrity Act takes a realistic and practical approach to reforming our country's campaign finance laws. By taking a step in the right direction the House can pass legislation that both focuses on reforming the most egregious campaign finance abuses, while standing the best chance of passing the Senate and being signed into law by the President. Let's restore the faith of the American people and pass legislation that moves towards meaningful campaign finance reform. I urge support of the Campaign Integrity Act of 1999.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, especially as time is drawing short. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill of the gentleman and in the interest of full and complete disclosure. I have got to tell my colleagues that I am an avid wine enthusiast and that my wife and I took our honeymoon vacation to the wineries of California, and we have enjoyed our subsequent visits there. But I will tell my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, this is not just an issue that affects California but one that impacts Texas, Oregon, Washington, Virginia, New York. And my own beloved State of Missouri is home to many family-run wineries whose intentions are not criminal. Instead, these small businesses attempt to satisfy long-time repeat customers and cultivate new ones, those who have left those well-worn tourist paths and have chosen to adventure to experience the adventure and hospitality of a small but friendly winery. These long-time family businesses in my district, one dating back to 1855, nonetheless depend on E-commerce, a way to attract new business and survive alongside the large wholesalers. Mr. Chairman, this law, in my belief, is unnecessary. I have listened and I have accepted the invitation of my friend from Florida, and I have listened to the debate; and I have got to tell my colleagues that I am unmoved by arguments offered by the proponents that massive numbers of underage drinkers are searching the Internet for basement bargains of bottles of Bordeaux to binge with their friends on their parents' next night out. I am struck, however, by the apparent inconsistency demonstrated by some of those who are leading the charge in favor of this measure. A few weeks ago, the gentleman from Georgia, we were leading the charge, a very emotional debate, about the availability of and access to firearms and whether further restrictions were needed. Many argued against further intrusions claiming appropriately, in my view, that additional gun laws were in violation of the rights of law-abiding citizens. Here is my question: If gun manufacturers are immune from civil liability in the case of criminal conduct committed by a violent felon who has purchased a firearm, and I support that immunity, then how can we hold vintners responsible for the unlawful purchases of wine? I urge the defeat.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule changes for the 106th Congress, I am informing you that I missed one vote on Friday, June 25, 1999, rollcall No. 256. On this vote, I would have voted ``aye''.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, if I believed that passing one additional law or a library filled with law books would prevent incidences of school violence in America, I would stand here and lead the charge. But the fact is the answer to school violence in America is not here in Washington. The answer to tragedies like Littleton, Colorado are found in Littleton, Colorado. Were it in my power, Mr. Chairman, I would urge this body to adjourn and urge all Members to go home to have listening sessions with students home from student breaks, to encourage parents to get more involved in raising their kids. My sentiment on this issue is just as strong today as it will be during tomorrow's debate. And just as I believe it is inappropriate to point the barrel of the gun at manufacturers or at law-abiding citizens who enjoy the protections of the second amendment, I believe it is equally inappropriate to train the lens of the video camera on the entertainment industry or those that are enjoying their first amendment rights. Regrettably, I ask for a vote of ``no'' on the Hyde amendment.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next 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 move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I missed three votes last night, rollcall Numbers 167, 168 and 169. These votes were missed due to a canceled airline flight. On these votes, I would have voted ``aye''.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 1664, the supplemental Emergency Appropriations for Kosovo and Southwest Asia, and I urge the Committee on Appropriations to return to this body with a more fiscally prudent bill to cover the true costs of U.S. military operations against Yugoslavia. Let me say at the outset that my opposition to this measure does not in any way reflect upon my belief that the President has seriously miscalculated the merits of Operation Allied Force. Last week, as this body debated a series of resolutions dealing with the crises in Kosovo, I expressed my lack of confidence in the military policies pursued by the President and his political advisors. Today, however, from my humble vantage point, the issue is dramatically different. The men and women of the United States Armed Forces who find themselves in the thick of the Balkan conflict are not allowed to question the merits of the orders given by their commanding officers. By choosing to enlist in the military, they allow themselves to be placed in harm's way in order to defend America's interests even when those ``national interests'' as defined by their Commander-in- Chief are questionable or controversial. I believe Congress must reward their commitment with all of the resources reasonably necessary to successfully carry out their mission. The issue then before us is as follows: what level of emergency funding is consistent with achieving the objectives of the current NATO military campaign? To put it another way, how much has the Kosovo conflict cost us? It is my opinion that this figure is considerably less than $13 billion. My colleagues make a somewhat persuasive case that overall military preparedness has suffered as assets, equipment, and manpower are diverted from other regions of the world to cover the conflict in Kosovo. And yet, proponents of this measure are stretching the definition of ``readiness'' to include military projects and equipment not even remotely related to Operation Allied Force. The bill includes multiple construction items in seven countries: Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom. My colleagues argue that many of the barracks and maintenance shops in those countries were built before World War II and that no significant modernization improvements have been made. Can we not rectify these shortcomings through the normal appropriations process? Congress necessarily reserves the emergency supplemental bills to pay for unforeseen circumstances like disaster assistance or military conflicts. Do the indoor firing ranges or vehicle wash facilities qualify under such a designation? The bill further calls for a $1.8 billion increase in military pensions and cost of living adjustments for military personnel not participating in the NATO operation. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, I fully support improvements in the quality of life in the military. I agree with those legislators who claim that this Administration has contributed to the decline in recruitment and retention of experienced military personnel. However, the situation, while unacceptable, is completely unrelated to the subject of this bill--military operation in Yugoslavia and Southwest Asia. Again, those inequities are better rectified through Congress' annual appropriations process. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I agree with the intent of the legislation to restore our military might and return to an era of ``peace through strength''. I have consistently voted in favor of virtually every military appropriation bill that congress has considered. Today, however, I cannot in good conscience support a measure which attempts to reverse several years of military decline by loading up a supplemental appropriations bill and bootstrapping onto a true ``emergency''. Accordingly, I vote ``no'' on the resolution.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, this week is National Teacher Appreciation week and our attention is focused on education. As the elected Representative of Missouri's Ninth Congressional District, I have the distinct honor of representing sixteen colleges and universities, and a plethora of public and private schools which help prepare students to enter these educational institutions. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to honor all of the hard working individuals who work in these educational institutions in central and northeastern Missouri. Each and every one deserves accolades for their role in providing excellence in education. Today, however, I would like to point the national spotlight to highlight one of many devoted teachers who have dedicated their lives to provide quality education in Missouri's Ninth Congressional District. Last month, Mr. Stan Taylor of Columbia, Missouri, stopped by my district office to request a congratulations letter be sent to his wife, Karen, on her retirement from the Columbia Public School system. Karen began teaching in 1961 in a rural, one room school house called East Center School in Kirksville, Missouri. She had the tremendous responsibility for teaching all grades, first through twelve, at East Center School. In 1967, Karen began teaching within the Columbia Public School District, and for the last twenty years she has taught second grade elementary school at Rock Bridge Elementary School in Columbia, Missouri. Mr. Speaker, as I learned of Karen's dedication to improve education in Missouri's Ninth District, I felt if befitting that I recognize her special efforts, and in doing so, I honor all of those like her who have dedicated their professional lives to help enhance the education of their students. Not surprisingly, I do not stand alone in placing this honor. On May 22nd, the Missouri Teachers Association and more than 300 people-- family, friends, colleagues and former students--will help celebrate Karen's educational efforts at Rock Bridge Elementary School during a reception to commemorate her retirement after twenty years of teaching in the Columbia Public School system. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close with Mr. Taylor's words about his wife. He wrote that the most important lesson Karen stressed to her students was the power of knowledge through reading. Every day she would read to her students. It was her goal throughout her thirty year teaching career to encourage every student to become believers in the importance of reading. Thank-you Karen, for your devotion to your students and for providing excellent education for many generations of children. I stand here today to honor you and all those who share your commitment towards excellence in education. May we all celebrate National Teacher Appreciation Week with those who have given us the priceless gift of education.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the 55th anniversary of what may be the least known, yet most gallant naval effort ever waged, the operation known as Exercise Tiger. Fifty-five years ago, 749 American soldiers and sailors lost their lives in the English Channel when they were attacked by German torpedo boats. Embarked aboard landing ship tanks or LSTs for a secret rehearsal of the Normandy landing, and without accompanying escorts, these brave men came under attack from nine German Navy E-boats patrolling the English Channel. With uncommon courage and valor, the soldiers and crew engaged in Exercise Tiger defended their ships in the greatest naval engagement ever conducted by LST's. However, in the battle that raged, three LSTs were torpedoed. Two of them, the U.S.S. LST-507, and the LST-531 sunk to the bottom of the English Channel, while a third LST, the U.S.S. LST-289, was able to reach port. Their sacrifice played a key role in ensuring the success of the subsequent Normandy invasion, which ultimately freed Europe. Today, I am here to honor and remember the veterans, living and dead, of Exercise Tiger, and to celebrate the placement of an anchor from an LST in Mexico, Missouri. This memorial will serve as a permanent reminder to all who see it of the high price of freedom that those involved in Exercise Tiger paid. Mr. Speaker, I also want to recognize Walt Domanski, the National Director of the Tiger Foundation, and others who helped make this memorial a reality. On June 12, 1997, Mr. Domanski made a request to U.S. Navy Captain Gary Chiavarotti, Director of the U.S. Navy's Inactive Fleet, for the Navy to donate two 5,000 pound stern anchors from the Suffolk County Class tank landing ships, which operated under the code name Exercise Tiger, to serve as twin State and national memorials to commemorate the Battle of Exercise Tiger in New Jersey and Missouri. On July 13th, 1997, the request was approved. In December of 1997, the anchor traveled a 1,500 mile journey from Norfolk, Virginia, to Columbia, Missouri, and was given to area ``Tiger'' veterans as a Christmas present. This action mainly resulted from the efforts of U.S. Navy Petty Officer Rocky Roberts, who served on the tank landing ship LaMoure County 1194, and by Uponeor ETI of Columbia, who donated their transportation resources. The LaMourne ship was safely transported to Columbia for the 1995 Exercise Tiger ceremony. This was the first time the U.S. Navy had ever donated an active ship to honor such an event. Now, its anchor will stand as The Missouri Exercise Tiger Army & Navy Anchor Memorial. Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that under the direction of Commissioner Dick Weber and the efforts of Mexico, Missouri, businessman Paul Koelling, both Audrain County and the Mexico community was assembled together to help donate the necessary work and funding for the Exercise Tiger Anchor Memorial project. At this time, I would also like to mention the efforts of the Mexico Veterans of Foreign Wars Post, the American Legion (who donated over $2,000 for this event), and the Exercise Tiger Association members. All have contributed to make this memorial a lasting tribute to those that served in the operation of Exercise Tiger. It is my honor to acknowledge the indispensable role that members of Exercise Tiger played in making the D-day invasion a success. I am proud to call attention to the efforts of the U.S. Navy and the Mexico Veterans Post who served as the ``anchor'' of this commemorative effort--helping to make this dream a reality.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a small radio station with a big voice which has been broadcasting for six decades in Missouri. In Warrenton, Missouri, a small but growing community, Bill and Merle Zimmerman first established KWRE-AM-73, a radio station to serve the residents of east central Missouri 50 years ago. Playing tunes by Marty Robbins, Dottie West, and Jim Reeves, KWRE Radio officially hit the air waves in 1949 and has remained true to its motto of playing traditional country music ever since. I would like to take these few minutes, Mr. Speaker, to honor those at this humble radio station who have reached out to people in Warren County, as well as Lincoln, Montgomery, Gasconade and Franklin Counties, deep in the heartland of Missouri's Ninth Congressional District. Now, despite the demands of running a modern station, those at KWRE have maintained traditional homegrown values as their core operating method. As such, they have proven over the last 50 years that America still wants to hear wholesome traditional values and classic country songs. In 1962, this hometown tradition was carried on by Vern and Lillian Kasper. The Kaspers bought KWRE Radio and were able to modernize the broadcast facilities, increase the community services offered by the station, and air award-winning editorials and other public service programs. Those responsible for maintaining KWRE's traditional country image are people like Phil Summers, who brings a vast array of characters and endless trivia tidbits to the station's morning show each weekday. His award-winning show ranks as one of the best entertainment and local news shows in east central Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to highlight the quality of KWRE's morning programming. And currently, I and other locally-elected officials are regular guests on Mike Thomas' weekday ``Livewire'' program. ``Livewire'' is actually just that, a live wire. It covers a range of topics, from local school issues to international relations and everything in between. Every other week I am honored to be a guest on the ``Livewire'' show and help inform the listeners in east central Missouri about legislative action taking place here in our Nation's Capitol and how it affects folks at home. Overall, there are several programs on KWRE that focus primarily on news and information. The station broadcasts at least 15 daily news broadcasts to all six counties in east central Missouri. In addition to providing top-notch newscasts, KWRE is also known for its broadcast of agricultural information. And having grown up on a family farm in Missouri, I know firsthand how important it is to have up-to-date market information and how useful it can be for local farmers and those involved in agribusiness. KWRE does this as well as any and better than most. Finally, Mr. Speaker, KWRE also acts as the public service medium to inform its listeners about upcoming nonprofit events listed on its free bulletin board. KWRE-73 Sports is the hometown sports voice for area schools, broadcasting approximately 60 high school football and basketball games each school year. The station broadcasts a live weekly sports show, ``Instant Replay,'' aimed at keeping the fan and sportsman in-the-know. In summary, KWRE accommodates all ages of east central Missouri's residents whether it is the annual Senior Citizens Fair and Exposition or the annual Children's Christmas Party giving away thousands of dollars in toys to area children. The canned goods given for admission are distributed to local charities in time for Christmas delivery. In conclusion, I want to express my admiration for those who have helped to maintain the hometown tradition since 1949. I wish KWRE in Warrenton, Missouri, all the best in their 50th anniversary celebration and hope they can continue to provide such wholesome, hometown coverage for east central Missouri for decades to come.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rules change for the 106th Congress, I am informing you that I missed two votes today, Role Number 22 and 23, taken on H.R. 171 and H.R. 193. These votes were missed due to a canceled airline flight caused by a snowstorm in the Midwest. On these votes, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I have come to the floor of the United States House of Representatives this morning to talk about some big news in a small town in Missouri's Ninth Congressional district. That small town is Ashland, Missouri, in Southern Boone County. Now, Ashland is a community of just under 2,000 residents but today, Mr. Speaker, I want to single out 105 residents of that community, the Ashland Optimist Club, who are really making a tremendous impact in the lives of many more mid-Missourians. The Ashland Optimist Club is big news in my district because of the huge contribution it makes to the community. Now, the Ashland Optimist Club is one of 4,000 Optimist clubs in the United States and Canada, and was chartered in September of 1964 with only 24 members. Today the club has grown in numbers, still has an original charter member, Mr. Labmon Wren. Mr. Wren, who was once president of the club, has seen firsthand how the community of Ashland has really prospered by the dedication of those at the Ashland Optimist Club that he helped to establish. The motto of the club is, ``Friend of Youth.'' Here are just a few of the noteworthy accomplishments the club has made to give life to that motto. The Ashland Optimist Club has organized the youth basketball and soccer programs. In fact, Mr. Speaker, one of the local soccer teams will be competing in the national playoffs this summer. The club has built and donated two tennis courts near the city park. It operates a 32-team Little League baseball program. It purchased new band uniforms for the school marching band; owns and operates the Ashland community swimming pool, the only municipal pool in Missouri to utilize solar energy. The club has sponsored Boy Scouts for three decades. I also want to single out the club, Mr. Speaker, for praise in helping the general population of the community in several other ways. For example, when a local school nurse needed a tympometer to test the hearing of the elementary students and the school district budget did not quite allow for the purchase of one, the Ashland Optimist Club donated the equipment to the school. When the Southern Boone County Volunteer Fire Department needed the ``Jaws of Life'' to extricate accident victims from their vehicles, the club came to the rescue and purchased one for the department. There are so many activities, food donations to needy families, scholarships for high school students, that the Ashland Optimist Club has taken on to improve the quality of life. The members have also done their part to save a life. Without a doubt the most meaningful fund-raising the club has produced were the fund- raisers last year to help two residents win the fight against life- threatening health conditions. A few month ago Mr. John Johnson, a local resident and club member, desperately needed a kidney transplant. The Ashland Optimist Club established a John Johnson Kidney Fund and raised over $7,000 to help defray medical and travel expenses. Just a few months ago in August, 4-year-old Tailor Heneisen was diagnosed with a cancerous tumor in her stomach. Without hesitation the Ashland Optimist Club sprang into action and organized an auction in her benefit. The club raised over $22,000 to help pay for her care and travel expenses. I am pleased to report that through the help and effort of the club, little Tailor's cancer is in remission after a long hard battle and several treatments of chemotherapy. These examples of small miracles performed by the Ashland Optimist Club prove how a small number of individuals in a community can really make a tremendous impact and better not only the lives of those within the community but all of those who live in mid-Missouri. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to honor the club for its most crowning achievement for this new year. In 1992 the club constructed a 10,000 square foot facility to build a community center on 20 acres in the city. The building has been the site of numerous wedding receptions and high school reunions, Friday night bingos. The facility also provides seniors a place to walk in cold winter months, and is the home court for the local basketball teams. On the grounds surrounding the facility are large soccer fields and the newly constructed rodeo arena that hosts the Missouri High School Rodeo Association rodeo. The Ashland Optimist Club constructed this facility after borrowing $330,000 for the project. Last month, Mr. Speaker, the club wrote their last check and paid their mortgage off. And on February 28th the club will be having a special community social and will be having a mortgage burning party. I am pleased to acknowledge that the club has been able to pay off their mortgage 13 years early due to the efforts of Carl and Lena Long and their STAR bingo team. The Longs and the STAR team diligently worked and promoted the club's weekly bingo game, which is the major form of fundraising for the club. Now that the facility is paid in full, the Ashland Optimist Club will have an additional $80,000 to $100,000 annually to continue to spend for the youth and community as a whole. Mr. Speaker, Carl and Lena Long, the STAR bingo team, and the entire club deserve special recognition for the years of hard work. And on behalf of the entire House of Representatives, I offer my commendation for a job well done.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, if the President of the United States simply committed adultery, then that indeed is a matter that should be reserved to his family. If, on the other hand, the President of the United States committed perjury or other illegal acts, then that matter must necessarily be reserved to this Congress. I agree that the private failings of a public man deserve neither debate nor reprimand from this body, and yet public misconduct committed by that same official deserves punishment of the fullest measure. Based upon my solemn review of the evidence and historical precedents, I am firmly convinced beyond a doubt that William Jefferson Clinton used every conceivable means available to him, including perjury and obstruction, to defeat the legal rights of another citizen who claimed she had been wronged and who sought redress from our justice system, and, in that way, the President's private indignities became indignities against the Constitution by which we are governed. Our third branch of government has rightly said no individual is above the law, no single citizen can determine or judge the merits of another case, save those clothed with the cloak of judicial interpretation, and yet the President, under penalty of perjury, bore false witness under oath, and Ms. Jones' rights to due process were violated. That result, Mr. Speaker, is bad enough in itself, but I believe it reached constitutional proportions when the denial of a civil rights of another citizen is directed by the President of the United States. Mr. Speaker, what we say here today will be but paragraphs, perhaps even footnotes, in the pages of history yet to be written by those to come. What we do here will be indelibly imprinted upon the American tradition. Let not this House grant a pardon to the President for his criminal offenses. Let not history look back on this day and say there, on that date, America surrendered the rule of law. There can be no presidential executive privilege to lie under oath. Regrettably, my oath of office, my sacred honor, requires from me a vote of ``aye'' on the resolution before this House.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, last night I addressed this body and urged my colleagues to please avoid partisan wrangling. Today I implore the Members of this body to recognize the historical gravity of the moment. Today is not the day to condemn the process or the prosecutor. Today is not the day for talking points or pointing fingers. Mr. Speaker, in this debate, let us pledge not our loyalty to our party, let us pledge allegiance to our country. Let us not be partisans. Instead, let us be patriots. I, too, am concerned about the open-ended nature of the investigation. I believe each one of us would fervently wish this cup would pass us by, but I have faith in the integrity and ability of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and when he says this process will be handled fairly and expeditiously, I think his word deserves great weight in this body. So the question I have for the Members is simply this: Is it possible, is it possible, that there is credible evidence that exists that would constitute grounds for an impeachment? If Members' answer is a solemn yes, then vote in favor of the resolution. But I submit, even if Members' answer is an equivocal ``I do not know,'' then I think that the judgment of the doubt, the benefit of the doubt, must go in favor of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, last January I was privileged to enter this Chamber for the first time, my family proudly beaming from the House gallery as I rose in unison with the Members of this body to take an oath. I pledged my sacred honor to the Constitution of the United States. That is what this vote is about. In my humble and considered opinion, that oath requires from me a vote of aye on the resolution.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, these past several days this body has been consumed with political wrangling over spending bills and legislative riders, debate over tax cuts and social security, whether to fund the IMF or not fund the IMF. That has been the question. It seems as if each side has sought some political advantage during these debates. That is not necessarily a criticism. We are, after all, a political body. The question we now face, Madam Speaker, however, is one of profound historical significance: Shall a formal impeachment inquiry commence. As we consider and struggle with this weighty matter, I implore my colleagues to focus on the gravity of the moment. Some may be tempted to condemn the process, or the prosecutor. But Madam Speaker, now is not the time for talking points or for pointing fingers. Madam Speaker, in this debate, let us not pledge our loyalty to our party, let us pledge, instead, our allegiance to our country. We must not allow ourselves to be partisans. Instead, we must be patriots. Like many Members, Madam Speaker, I am concerned about the open-ended nature of the resolution. I believe that each of us here would fervently wish this cup could pass us by. But I have profound faith in the integrity and the ability of the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois. He has given us his pledge that this process will move forward fairly and expeditiously, and I think the gentleman's word deserves and should be afforded great weight in this body. The question then before us is whether or not we should follow the considered recommendation of the Committee on the Judiciary to move forward with formal hearings. As we ponder that question, let me ask another, which goes to the very heart of the matter. Is it possible that credible evidence exists which may constitute grounds for an impeachment? If the answer to the question is a solemn yes, then Members should cast their vote accordingly. But even if they respond with an equivocal ``I do not know,'' I believe the doubt should be resolved in favor of holding hearings and the resolution should be accepted. Madam Speaker, let us not avert our gaze but instead let us fix our eyes on the horizon wherever that little traveled road leads us. Last January I was granted the privilege to enter this Chamber for the first time.

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds to conclude.

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, Last January, I was granted the privilege to enter this chamber for the first time. My family beamed down at me with pride from the gallery as I began my service to this nation. On that day I rose in unison with my colleagues and pledged my oath, my sacred honor to uphold the Constitution of the United States. In my humble and considered opinion that oath requires from me a vote of ``aye'' on the resolution.