Kenny Hulshof

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 575, I announce the following suspensions to be considered on Thursday October 8: H.R. 4364, Depository Institution Regulatory Streamlining Act of 1998; H. Res. 578, Science Policy Report; H. Res. 565, Mammograms; H.R. 2263, Theodore Roosevelt; H.R. 4506, International Child Labor Relief Act of 1998; H.R. 4660, To Provide Rewards for Information Leading to the Arrest or Conviction of Any Individual for the Commission of an Act, or Conspiracy to Act, of International Terrorism, Narcotics Related Offenses, or for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Relating to the Former Yugoslavia; H. Con. Res. 320, Supporting the Baltic People of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and Condemning the Nazi Soviet Pact of Non-Aggression of August 23, 1939; H. Res. 557, Expressing Support for U.S. Government Efforts to Identify Holocaust Era Assets, Urging the Restitution of Individual and Communal Property; H. Con. Res. 331, Expressing the Sense of Congress Concerning the Inadequacy of Sewage Infrastructure Facilities in Tijuana, Mexico; H. Con. Res. 309, Condemning the Forced Abduction of Ugandan Children and Their Use As Soldiers; H.R. 3874, William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act of 1998; S. 2206, Coats Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998; S.J. Res. 51;

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox) has it just right. There is so much about this tax cut package that is to like. When we had this debate last week, as the gentleman knows, there was a lot of discussion and a lot of rhetoric being thrown around by our friends on the other side, especially when we talked about Social Security. The beauty of this particular provision is that we want to take 90 percent of the projected surplus and put it aside to save Social Security; surplus funds, not monies needed to balance the Federal checkbook. In fact, I came, Mr. Speaker, to this very floor and caused, I think, a little consternation because I had ten one dollar bills in my hand and I said, we have been talking in trillions and billions of dollars and sometimes that is a difficult concept to grasp, these numbers with so many zeroes. Let us think of it this way, and I had ten one dollar bills. We wanted to take nine of those ten and fold them up and put them in our pocket and put that aside to save Social Security, to make sure that Social Security is there not just for today's seniors but for tomorrow's as well. Simply, what we want to do is take one dollar of the surplus funds, one dollar out of ten, and leave it in the pockets of those who earned it. I am troubled by the statements made at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue and talks of potential vetoes. In fact, the White House even said that we were, quote, squandering the surplus, squandering the surplus, by letting the American taxpayer keep what is rightfully his or hers. There are so many things in this particular provision. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is exactly right. When trying to at least make a down payment on the elimination of the marriage tax penalty, we have much further to go, but certainly when my wife and I a few short years ago stood at the altar and said I do, it was not I do want to pay more in income tax, and yet that is the plight of many married couples in this country. Simply by investing in the institution of marriage, their tax bill has gone up. I think that this provision does a good job of trying to level the playing field. As the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) talked about, farmers and ranchers who are having a difficult time right now in this country, there is relief for those farmers and ranchers, small businesspeople, with the death tax. All of those things are addressed, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox) talked about, the head of our economic development back in Missouri wrote a letter on behalf of our governor, a democratic governor as it turns out, urging us to increase the private activity bond cap because of the affordable housing issue. It is addressed in this bill. One of the things that I want to visit about is something that we have worked on specifically that would leave that dollar of that surplus money in the pockets of the low and middle income people in this country, and that is those who try to save, those people who try to put away their pennies and nickels. When you think about it, Mr. Speaker, they are being punished for their thrift. I happen to have a 1040 form over here, modified just a bit, with a big circle and a slash. But when you think about, and I know this is maybe painful for you to think about April 15th of each year, but when you think about having to pull out the files and start to fill out your 1040, as we do most spring months, obviously most taxable income of most Americans is wages and salaries. But when you consider that those of us that are able to put aside a little bit into a money market account, or maybe an interest bearing checking account, and any interest that we earn is being taxed, it is included in taxable income. And you carry it down here and you are being taxed on that amount, as you are the rest of your income, when many other countries actually provide some more incentives for their citizens to save and invest. What this bill does is simply allow an exclusion up to $400, if you are a married couple, as the gentleman has been talking about with married couples, allowing joint filers to exclude up to $400 of interest or dividend income, to not be taxed, to put that back perhaps into other investments. The Congressional Research Service has recently done a study just on this small saver provision that said this proposal would really benefit the low and middle income taxpayers, because it hits them more proportionately than it would somebody down at Wall Street. Of course, having thousands of dollars in investments a $400 exclusion is not likely to help that individual very much. As the gentleman from South Dakota talked about a moment ago, not only is this good in a broad-based way as far as providing relief for millions of taxpayers, the small saver provision is helping 68 million taxpayers, but, more importantly, it is an issue of simplification. I know a year ago when we had the debate about taxpayer relief of 1997, one of the constructive comments was this was not something that added to simplification of the Tax Code. This bill we passed in the House does just that. As the gentleman talked about, how many millions of taxpayers will not have to itemize any longer, just because of the marriage tax penalty elimination? I know that certainly millions of taxpayers will no longer have to fill out this Schedule B form, the interest and dividend income exclusion. So we are simplifying the Tax Code. By not requiring those additional calculations and forms, some I think 10 million Americans will no longer have to file a 1040, they can file a 1040 EZ just because of the small saver provision. Seven million will not have to trouble themselves with the Schedule B if this small saver provision is signed into law by the President. So not only are we providing broad-based relief, we are simplifying the Tax Code, which I think is something even our friends on the other side support.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I know our time is drawing short. In addition to one of the provisions in the bill that does not get a lot of air play, if you will, is the credit that we provide companies in this country to invest in research. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Arizona knows that technology is the key for America remaining on the cutting edge of being a world leader. In the past we have provided certain credits, tax credits for businesses who try those new ideas, who put into practice, as they ordinarily would, those innovative plans off the drawing board that they try to put into action. And that tax credit of course has expired, but now we include that tax credit, that research and development treatment so that companies and businesses, not just the big ones, but the mom and pops that think they can build a better mousetrap, that they can also have access by bringing those plans off the drawing board to make sure that we remain the most competitive among other nations across the planet, and it is something that does not get again very much discussion, but something I think that is very critical and crucial that is included in this tax plan. Mr. Speaker, as a final point I would say to my friend and allow the gentleman to conclude, my colleagues here this evening, most of them were elected I think in the elections of 1994. As a new Member, someone who is just about to conclude his first term, there seems to be a universal attraction here in Washington between a pot of unspent money and a Washington politician. If we do not set aside this surplus money to save Social Security as we are doing, 90 cents out of every dollar, putting that aside, and then allowing 10 cents out of a dollar remaining in the pockets of the taxpayers who earned it, if we do not take the measures now, those affirmative actions now to shield off those surplus funds, it will be spent. It will be spent on big government, it will be spent on Washington. So I very much applaud and support our efforts last week of taking 90 percent of projected surpluses, strengthening Social Security, shoring it up for the future. Again, not just for today's seniors, but for future generations of seniors, while at the same time of putting that 90 percent towards Social Security, and allowing 10 percent to remain in the pockets of the taxpayers who send it here to Washington. They deserve no less than that. I appreciate the gentleman for allowing me to spend some time with him this evening.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4017, the Energy Conservation Reauthorization Act, and I especially want to commend the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Dan Schaefer), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), for their bipartisan cooperation in bringing this bill to the floor. We have heard this bill reauthorizes a number of important programs, two I want to focus on just briefly. One of those important programs is the weatherization assistance. This program really helps families with lower incomes, particularly the elderly. Don Patrick, the director of the Northeast Community Action Center in Missouri, in the 9th congressional district, allowed me to tag along to see firsthand some of the weatherization projects that they were actually doing for some of the elderly citizens in the 9th Congressional District. This clearly is a program that needs to be continued, and I give it my full support. But, secondly, this bill, and a lot of the discussion, has focused on the alternative fuel of bio-diesel. And as the Speaker knows, I have tried to be a champion on alternative fuels in this body, and so I am proud to lend my support to bio-diesel. It is environmentally friendly and something that not only, as has been talked about, helps clear the air but helps promote our agriculture products. The thing that is especially good about this bill, Mr. Speaker, if we look back in 1992, the Energy Policy Act actually imposed requirements on the managers of motor vehicle fleets that before they could make new vehicle acquisitions, that they would have to go through certain requirements each year. And what this bill does is strongly encourage those fleet managers to include the purchase or use of bio-diesel in those cars and trucks. One reason that I think this is so good is we are using the carrot rather than the stick approach. We are rewarding the use of alternative fuels to achieve the goals of EPACT to displace imported petroleum rather than the stick approach. This is not a Federal mandate. We are not creating or complicating the Tax Code with new tax breaks, nor are we increasing Federal spending. As has been touched on before, by increasing markets, in fact, the gentleman from North Dakota who was here to speak talked about in this difficult time for America's farmers and ranchers that if we can not only strengthen our export markets, but if we can look within our own borders and try to strengthen domestic markets, and this bill does that, by increasing markets for soybeans, we are directly helping each and every soybean producer across the country. Now, in the State of Missouri, we have over 32,000 soybean producers that plant 4.9 million acres of soybeans in fields all across the State. And by inclusion of bio-diesel, we could see as much as 7 cents a bushel added to the value of soybeans that they are selling at the grain elevator. I had occasion just this morning to speak with a soybean producer on the phone from Missouri, my father, who was extremely excited that we are looking for ways to expand markets, because clearly farmers and ranchers across the country are having a difficult time. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, at a time when American agriculture, where our critically important foreign markets are sagging, there can be no clearer reason for moving forward in the expansion of markets. We should do that in any way we can. And I think due credit should go not only to my freshman colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), but also the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy), a neighbor; and I wish to thank them for their work in bringing this bill together. Let us pass this bill, because it is right for the environment and it is right for our farmers. I urge every Member of this body to vote ``aye'' on H.R. 4017.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, first of all, as a member of the Subcommittee on Social Security, I have to commend the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Kentucky, with having a series of hearings about saving social security. I participated in the first great debate in Kansas City with the President about the discussion about social security. But I think what we are trying to do today, Mr. Speaker, is rather than just talking about saving social security, we are putting actions with our words. We are putting the peoples' money where our mouths are. There has been a lot of talk about billions and trillions of dollars, about the surplus, but let me put it in language that everybody can understand. Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand ten $1 bills, a projected surplus. This is not money that is needed to balance the Federal checkbook, which we are doing. But of these ten $1 bills of surplus money, we want to take 9 of those bills and put them aside for social security for safekeeping. We want to take this single dollar bill of surplus money and leave it in the pockets of the people who sent it here. How dare these Members say to married couples across this country, we want to continue to punish you because you choose to get married, we are not going to let you have this dollar? How dare we say to the farmers of this country, who feed us, or the small businesspeople who employ the majority of people, no, you sent the money here, but you cannot have it back? It is laughable, Mr. Speaker. Even in this tax relief measure we are providing relief for seniors who choose to work beyond retirement. There is tax relief for seniors in this bill. Yet, our friend on the other side say no. In fact, the gentleman from Michigan earlier today in this debate said that we were picking the pockets of the taxpayers of this country. There is such a death grip on this dollar by those on the other side that they will not even let it stay in the pockets of those who sent it here. I say no. I say it is time to say no to the Rangel substitute and yes to the bill. We can save social security, and let the American people keep what they earn. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to speak in strong support of the Save Social Security Act. Social Security is perhaps the most important and successful program in the history of our republic. It has helped generations of Americans retire with dignity and respect. There is bipartisan agreement that we should take advantage of projected budget surpluses to address the long-term financial challenges facing the system. We owe it to retirees and future generations to do this, and I commend Representatives Bunning, the Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee, for the series of hearings he has held over the past year and a half to take an honest, straightforward look at the choices we must make to save Social Security for our children and grandchildren. To make sure there are enough resources set aside from future budget surpluses, the Save Social Security Act proposes that we wall-off $1.4 trillion of future budget surpluses in a special Save Social Security Account. That's right, $1.4 trillion. Clearly, this is a responsible commitment to the future of Social Security that will help preserve the program's solvency. By setting aside $1.4 trillion to save Social Security, we can not only protect the program, but allow the American people to keep more of their hard-earned money. Taxes are currently at their highest levels in our Nation's peacetime history. The House has a clear choice today. Those who think your constituents pay too much in taxes should vote for the Save Social Security Act. Those who think that Americans are not overtaxed or do not pay enough in taxes should vote against the bill before us. It is shameful to scare seniors and hide behind Social Security to cloak opposition to letting the American people keep more of their hard-earned dollars. It is even more shameful to hide behind Social Security to spend more on government programs, like the Administration's proposal to spend $13 billion of the surplus on new spending. I'm going to illustrate what this debate is all about. I am holding in my hand ten one dollar bills. What we are proposing is to take these nine dollars and put them aside to save Social Security. A truly worthy goal. Given the willingness of the Administration to spend the surplus on government programs, $13 billion at last count, the debate then becomes what do we do with this remaining one dollar. I think we should let the American people keep it. After all, it is their taxes that have created the surplus in the first place. Those who agree with me that this one dollar is best returned to the taxpayers will vote for the bill before us. Or, we can give this money to the Federal Government for new spending programs and let Americans continue to pay the highest level of taxes in our Nation's peacetime history. Those who favor this approach should vote against the Save Social Security Act. Putting aside enough money to protect Social Security is not the issue. The issue is more government programs or tax relief. The choice is clear. If you favor letting the American people keep more of their money, vote for the Save Social Security Act. If you want more Washington programs, vote against the bill.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, the headlines on Tuesday morning's paper in the city proclaimed: House Votes to Ban Soft Money and Increase Disclosure Requirements for Candidates. Guess what? If my colleagues vote for the freshman bill, they will get those same kudos tomorrow morning from the press because our freshman bill does just that. And let me say that I applaud and appreciate all the positive comments that our more senior Members have said here today, somewhat patronizing, I say, but I do appreciate those comments. And to the gentleman from California who talked about the problems in California, I respectfully believe that the freshman bill is a better bill than Shays-Meehan for a couple of reasons: We ban soft money. We prohibit the gentleman from California or any Member of Congress or any candidate for Federal office from raising soft money. We ban the State of California from allowing contributions of soft money to go to them. And yet is it up to us in this body to tell California what it should do? Is it up to those of us in this body to say what the election laws in Maine or Arkansas or in the State of Missouri should be? And for that reason I respectfully say that the Shays-Meehan bill is overreaching. It is fatally flawed in that effort because State parties might want to have and raise resources for get-out-the-vote efforts or for educating voters in the respective States on party platforms. Now secondly, I believe, respectfully again, I say to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), that their bill is flawed because of this arbitrary 60-day bright line, before-election line that they put in the sand. Members know, as they have been coming over for these votes for various days, there is an ardent reform group that has been parked on the street corner with a ticking clock saying that we need to enact reform because the clock is ticking, and they have been handing out literature propaganda like this that says: Urge a vote against the freshman bill. It is interesting, I see the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill) here who had a recent election in the State of Montana, a primary election. This same zealous group was trying to defeat him in his election with this same type of information, and the ultimate irony of this is if Shays-Meehan were law, if Shays-Meehan were the law of the land, this group would be lawbreakers because of the distribution of this information. Shays-Meehan is flawed in that regard. Not to mention all of the dispute that we have had about the constitutionality. Even the liberal-leaning St. Louis Post Dispatch editorial board says that there are constitutional problems with Shays- Meehan. And as the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) talked about the other day, that if Shays-Meehan is declared null and void by the Supreme Court of this land, that they will then be writing law. At least the freshman bill would come back to this body. As a final point, I am a bit disappointed that some Members have come here, especially my freshman Members, who said we urge a ``present'' vote. I want to talk about integrity. This bipartisan bill has 77 cosponsors, 77 cosponsors, 21 Republicans and the remaining Democrat Members. To this Member, as a brand new Member of Congress, when we cosponsor a piece of legislation what we are saying is that we are willing to put our names on the line because we support what is in the bill. This is called, the freshman bill is called, the Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act. It is time for the integrity of the elections process to begin today. So to the 77 cosponsors of our bill, I say it is time to put their vote where their name was on this bill. Instead of the Hutchinson-Allen bill, this bill could be called the Gejdenson-Wamp bill. It could be called the Campbell-DeLauro bill. So I urge the cosponsors of the freshman bill, do not take a pass. It is time for the integrity to begin today, because I believe, as the other freshman Members believe, we have the better bill, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I would ask to enter into a colloquy with the Chairman of the Subcommittee. First of all, I want to commend the Chairman. I also want to commend the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia, and other members of the Subcommittee for their commitment to address the methamphetamine problem in the United States, and specifically to provide $50 million of unused funds to the methamphetamine program within the community- oriented policing program. Tragically, Mr. Chairman, over the last couple of years, my home State of Missouri has ranked among the top three methamphetamine- producing States in the Nation. We have seen in our State investigations seizures double in recent years. I can tell the gentleman that law enforcement in Missouri is waging a war against methamphetamine production, and they closed over 310 labs last year. Unfortunately, a lot of work yet remains to be done. Demonstrating the problems methamphetamine is causing in Missouri, I got a letter from a constituent of mine, Linwood Willis Carman, Jr., who happens to work for the Wellsville Police Department in Montgomery County in suburban St. Louis. He asked for my help so his police department can continue to employ officers to combat meth. He says: ``Sir, I ask you for a helping hand to help me do what I love to do and was trained to do. I want to stop the meth makers of Missouri, and help the countless that fall victim to the temptation. I don't want to see Missouri ranked number one in the meth business anymore.'' Mr. Chairman, I understand the Senate provided $15.5 million for the methamphetamine program, well below the House level of $50 million. As we move to conference with the Senate, I ask for the Chairman's support in retaining the House funding level for this vital program in directing necessary funds to combat the methamphetamine problem in Missouri, so we can give local law enforcement officials the tools necessary to wage a winning battle over this highly addictive and destructive drug.

Mr. HULSHOF. I thank the chairman.

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 rise today to mark the anniversary of an institution of higher learning in my district which this year celebrates 140 years of service in Northeast Missouri. Hannibal-LaGrange College has provided quality Christian education to thousands of students while facing tremendous obstacles along its journey, a journey through which God's guiding hand has been evident. The college opened its doors on September 15 of 1858. First located 30 miles to the north of its present location in LaGrange, Missouri, the LaGrange Male and Female Seminary was founded by the Wyaconda Baptist Association to instill character-building principles and Christian ideals in its students. At the helm of the vessel was William Ellis, who served as the college's first president. Ellis, who reached the tender age of 24 years the day before classes began that first year, served admirably in his duties until Union troops took over the college's facilities in 1862 during the War between the States. When the institution reopened in 1866, the new President, Dr. Joshua Flood Cook, certainly faced a daunting task. Building repairs were necessary, books and equipment were needed for the classrooms, the hiring of faculty was required, and community support and confidence had to be restored. Dr. Cook began remedying these problems immediately and over the next 30 years he served as president Dr. Cook worked as a tireless servant moving the college forward in a manner that has reached unequaled levels of success. In late 1927, the Hannibal Chamber of Commerce began an effort to bring the LaGrange College to Hannibal, Missouri. The following year, the institution moved south and has for 70 years been carrying out its place in history. The college's new move was mixed with a salute to our Nation's history as well. In 1932, to mark the 200th anniversary of George Washington's birth, the daughters of the American Revolution secured a number of trees from Mount Vernon, Virginia, the home of our Nation's first president. Mr. Speaker, I was recently on campus and can assure you, these trees are still standing tall among the college's entrance drive today. All continued well for the college until 1973, when inflation and other factors put the college's future in jeopardy. When the campus was threatened with an imminent closing, community leaders, area residents, and Hannibal-LaGrange personnel reacted quickly and decisively, raising $85,000 to keep the college doors open. Again, faced with possible closure, Hannibal-LaGrange received a tremendous blessing in order to remain open. However, the most challenging obstacle was yet to come. In the summer of 1989, a small fire in the college's cafeteria soon engulfed the campus' main facilities, including the administration building, auditorium, and gymnasium. As the fire blazed through the night and the early morning hours, doubts about the college's future began to surface in even the heartiest of souls. By daylight only charred remains of the structures existed. Encouraged by his faith in God, then-President Dr. Paul Brown, as well as college personnel and supporters, began a massive effort to rebuild what was temporarily destroyed. As classes and assemblies were held that fall in tents and in trailers and dormitory basements, the campus began to take shape. In 1992, following the construction of a new sports complex, cafeteria and computer center, the new administration building was dedicated under the leadership of Dr. Brown and current President, Dr. Woodrow Burt. Hannibal-LaGrange has certainly become ``a crown of beauty instead of ashes.'' This quote from Isaiah, chapter 61, verse 3, was placed on the cornerstone of the administration building, and today the college is continuing its vision as Dr. Burt and development officials are spearheading an effort to build a performance center for the institution's fine arts program. A new dormitory will be ready for the ever-increasing student population this fall which, by the way, Mr. Speaker, last year the student population not only came from northeast Missouri but New Hampshire, Texas, California and as far away as the West Indies and the country of Slovakia. In conclusion, Hannibal-LaGrange has persevered and has produced quality alumni. Thousands have passed through the corridors of Hannibal-LaGrange, each serving as a witness to the impact the college has had on their lives. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Hannibal-LaGrange College on providing 140 years of Christian education. May God continue to bless this fine institution for many years to come.

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, due to business in my Congressional District, I was not present for roll call votes 267 through 274. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on roll call 267, no on roll call 268, yea on roll call 269, aye on roll call 270, nay on roll call 271, nay on roll call 272, nay on roll call 273 and aye on roll call 274.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to commend the Reverend Michael Coleman, known as Pastor Mike to his parishioners. This morning Pastor Mike opened the United States House of Representatives with his blessings, and we are thankful that the people of Park Methodist Church in Hannibal, Missouri, were nice enough to share him with those of us here in Washington. It is wonderful to hear him spreading the good news. Pastor Mike has a reputation for bringing folks together, not just Democrats and Republicans, but communities as well. When he served as president of the Ministerial Alliance in Hermann, Missouri, Pastor Mike led an evangelistic crusade that united churches and aided folks in the recovery of their spirit from the 1993 great flood of the Missouri river. Pastor Mike was designated the Interfaith Regional Disaster Flood Coordinator, and built a team that included churches working along with the local rural mental health center in dealing with clean-up efforts, with the repair and placement of necessities as well as the emotional care of those who were suffering with post-traumatic stress. This was accomplished as a variety of churches and workers came to the area from all across the country, as they did in many communities. I would like to thank, Mr. Speaker, Pastor Mike, his wife, Nancy, his daughter, Abi, for taking time out of their busy schedules to visit the Nation's Capital. It is a honor to have Pastor Mike bless the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, as both a member of the Subcommittee on Social Security and a cosponsor of the Ticket to Work and Self- Sufficiency Act, I rise to express my strong support for this important and well-conceived piece of legislation. I do commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the chairman of the subcommittee, as well as the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly), the ranking member, for their efforts in working together. Over the last 18 months that I have been a member of the subcommittee we have had, I think, three separate hearings on the current SSDI and SSI programs and their existing work incentives. What our subcommittee heard, Mr. Speaker, was heartening testimony from disabled individuals who have a genuine desire to return to work and provide for their own well-being. What we also discovered is that the existing programs, as has been mentioned, and as are currently structured, often serve as a barrier for these individuals to achieve the noble and worthwhile goal of becoming productive citizens. We cannot as a body in good conscience allow a program that is meant to help the disabled turn into a system that restricts the potential of the motivated and talented individuals who, despite simply a disability, want to move on with their lives. What this Ticket to Work Act does is give those who are afflicted with a disability a helping hand. Recognizing that the challenges that no two persons face are alike, this bill gives those that are disabled the ability to receive rehabilitation services from the provider of their choosing and then, as empowered consumers, the disabled will be able to receive rehabilitation services from the provider that can best provide their specific needs. As has been mentioned, under current law the disabled are required to see State agencies for help. This legislation will allow individuals in the public or private or not-for-profit sectors to work together to help those disabled individuals who want to return to the workforce. Private agencies offering vocational training would be reimbursed according to the agency's success in helping people return to work and then remain in the workforce. Since one of the major inhibitions preventing the disabled from enjoying economic success is the fear of losing health insurance, this bill we are considering extends Medicare eligibility for an additional two years. Again, under current law people on SSDI, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania pointed out very eloquently, SSDI abruptly terminates benefits once a disabled individual earns $500 a month. This legislation authorizes the Social Security Administration to conduct a demonstration project to replace this current income cliff with a gradual, sliding scale reduction in SSDI benefits as individuals enjoy more success in the workforce and their earnings increase. Mr. Speaker, it takes courage and it takes dedication for a disabled individual to return to work. I have the utmost respect and admiration for those who are willing to take this important step. Again, we should be looking to knock down, not erect, barriers for these courageous individuals. This legislation does just that. The Ticket to Work Act will go a long way in achieving everyone's goal of helping people move on with their lives, allow our society to benefit, and I urge support. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their great work in fashioning this bill.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the freshman bill, the Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act of 1997. With great respect for the gentlewoman from Kentucky who just spoke recently, and another freshman Member, I am one of those self- proclaimed reformers. There has been a lot of discussion about the Shays-Meehan bill. One part that I happen to agree with the gentlewoman from Kentucky is that even with the motive, the good motive that I think is underlying the bill, I think it is unconstitutional. I think that it is an unconstitutional infringement upon the right of free speech. The freshman bill, I think, cuts a swath down the middle. As newly elected Members of Congress just off the 1996 campaign trail, our class is bringing a fresh look at reforming the way that Federal elections are financed in this country. Increasingly the American people are losing faith. They are losing confidence in the current system of campaign financing which reflects upon those of us who come here. The freshman bill is truly a bipartisan bill. It was crafted to meet the needs of reform without unfairly impacting one side over the other. With all due respect, last night we had a very passionate debate on the rule and the majority whip, right where I am standing, talked very passionately about the First Amendment. But with all due respect, there is no constitutional protection to soft money. There is nothing in the Constitution that says this unregulated, nondisclosed, big money in politics somehow enjoys the protections of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The freshman bill bans soft money. The other area that I think that our bill is actually an improvement over other measures that will be fully debated after we get back from our recess is on the issue of issue advocacy. Where this bill is an improvement over the Shays-Meehan bill is simply we are asking for disclosure. It is interesting that when you have a broadcast commercial either on the radio or television, the FCC requires that the advertisement's sponsor must be disclosed. Should we not at least require some disclosure from the FEC when you are engaging in broadcast? We are not asking for disclosure of who has contributed to these particular third party groups. We simply are asking for full disclosure. That is why I think that this freshman bill is the best measure. I urge its support. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, we face--all of us--a daunting challenge. To solve it, we must begin our work now and put partisan differences aside. As we proceed, we must do two things: First and foremost, we must honor our commitment to today's seniors and those who will retire soon. The green checks the Social Security Administration mails each month to one in six Americans are the backbone of retirement income for the nation. Secondly, we must also protect younger Americans so that Social Security works for them as well. Today is a good time to reaffirm that Social Security was originally intended to supplement retirement. It is just one leg of what is referred to as a 3-legged stool with the other two legs being private pensions and personal savings. On the latter point, Congress continues to look for ways to encourage personal savings so that thriftiness is rewarded not punished. This discussion today is about the extent to which future retirement should be a public responsibility and how much it would be a private one. If we delay reform, we shorten the time needed by the American people to accumulate savings and adjust their plans for retirement. Long-term changes must be made while the ``baby boomer'' generation is still in the work force and has time to make adjustments. While the solvency of Social Security is a slow-motion crisis, to America's workers in their 20's and 30's, there is an immediate crisis--a crisis of confidence. Instead of taking advantage of the tried and true power of compound interest, taxpayers are faced to put retirement savings in a Washington program that earns much less than a traditional savings account. We are standing on the threshold of a great new opportunity: the first federal surplus in a generation. Ladies and Gentlemen, the American people have never retreated from a crisis and we must not do so on this issue. Former President Gerald Ford, in a speech a year ago, pointed out that the Founders of our country designed a government in which it is easier to do nothing than to do a great deal all at once. But they also counted on the will and wisdom of Americans to conceive and implement reforms where necessary. Our conscience demands what our children deserve. God willing we will disappoint neither.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I have come to the floor of the United States House of Representatives tonight to talk about big news in a small town in Missouri's Ninth Congressional District. That town is Kirksville, Missouri. For those who do not know about Kirksville, it is the home of nationally-recognized Truman State University. Tonight my good friend, Jack Magruder, the President of Truman State, and some of his colleagues have tuned in for this tribute, because it is time, Madam Speaker, to pay tribute to a man of honor. Tonight I am here to salute a great countryman, Lieutenant Colonel James J. Lyons. His friends call him Jim. They also call him dependable. Lieutenant Colonel James Lyons has dedicated more than 29 years to Army service. He entered the Army as a private in the Ohio Army National Guard in 1968, completed basic training, completed Advanced Individual Training- Infantry at Fort Jackson, South Carolina; and after a period of enlisted service with the Ohio Guard, he entered Officer Candidate School at Fort Hayes, Ohio. He was commissioned a second lieutenant in 1970 and assigned to C Company, 113th Medical Battalion, where he served as ambulance platoon leader and training officer. Lt. Col. Lyons moved to Kirksville in 1972 and was assigned to the 5503d U.S. Army Hospital in Columbia, Missouri. He served in a number of staff officer positions, including assistant personnel officer, food service officer and hospital company commander. In 1976, he was project officer for the First Army Reserve Medical Symposium. A year later, he led the quartering party which organized the 901st Medical Detachment which, Madam Speaker, was the first Army Reserve Medical Unit in northern Missouri. Subsequently, he served as that unit's training officer and executive officer. In 1988, Lt. Col. Lyons helped establish the 303d Field Hospital in Kirksville. He also served as that unit's executive officer and deployable medical systems project officer. Lt. Col. Lyons was selected to be the first commander for the newly formed 4207th U.S. Army Hospital in 1995, a position he has held until his military retirement. Lt. Col. Lyon's awards and decorations are many. They include the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters, the Humanitarian Service Medal for work with Cuban refugees, the National Defense Service Medal with one Oak Leaf Cluster, the Reserve Components Achievement Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, as well as the Armed Forces Reserve Medal and the Expert Rifle Marksmanship badge. But not only has Lt. Col. Lyons distinguished himself in the military arena. He has also challenged himself academically. Lyons holds a Bachelor's degree in psychology from Fordham University and a Master's and Ph.D. in psychology from Ohio State University. He has been a faculty member at Truman State since 1972 and has served as the head of the Division of Social Science since 1979. His friend, George Melloh, refers to him as the linchpin of Truman State University, giving Lyons much credit for putting Truman State's name on the map. Also of importance, Madam Speaker, is how Lt. Col. Lyons has maintained careers in both the military and academic fields while earning honors in both. Kathy Reick, the dean of admissions at Truman State, points out that it takes a very special talent and a very special person to work with faculty during the week and with military on the weekends. The same approach to management and administration certainly does not work with both groups. Yet Lyon's colleagues from both the faculty and military praise him for his dedication, for his effectiveness, and for his good judgment. While Lt. Col. Lyons will retire from the military next month, he will continue to serve in the leadership of the social science department of Truman State University. We thank Lt. Col. Lyons for his service to his community, to his country, and we wish him the best of luck.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I thank him for that reminder of how it is we came to this point. In fact, if the gentleman will indulge me as a point of personal privilege, when I was sworn in on this floor on January 7, my parents were here, of course, and proud Papa remarked to one of the newspaper people that his son was going to be in the history books someday. And I had to call him in that first week in August and say, Dad, you were right, your prophecy has come true. I have made it in the history books. I am the first ever victim of the line item veto. I just thought history would taste a little sweeter than this. We have come full circle, hopefully. I certainly support H.R. 2513, the new and improved version. I know that there are colleagues of mine that will be speaking to the subpart F, and in support. So what I want to do is focus primarily on the farmer cooperative provision. I would be remiss unless I provided kudos to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], who coauthored this provision with me. I am happy to have worked with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] in trying to resurrect this provision. I think we have a good provision. As the gentleman pointed out, this was part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. We made it through the House, through the Senate, back through conference, and ultimately to the President's desk, and when the President actually vetoed this provision, he said that it was a well-intentioned provision, but that it was overbroad, that it was vague, and looked forward to working with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and myself in trying to craft a measure that could pass muster. So we have been able to do that. We stayed the course, and I think again have a good bill. Let me briefly talk about the goal of the legislation as far as it relates to the farmer co-ops. With the enactment of the farm bill in the last Congress, and as we move toward a balanced budget, toward the year 2002, Federal spending for agriculture programs will be unable to stay at the same level that they have been in decades past. Having come from a family farm, I think I know firsthand that if our Nation's farmers and our rural communities are to remain economically viable, if they are going to remain self-reliant, then we in Congress have a duty to reach out to them as we can to help them remain self- sufficient. I do not think there is any controversy that a company, a U.S. company, is more profitable as it vertically integrates. The same is true in agriculture. It is widely acknowledged that the most profitable sector of agriculture is in the refining and processing of agriculture products. If Members will allow me to demonstrate, this is a chart, a blowup that we used back in Missouri's Ninth Congressional District, but it is applicable to all American farmers. But just a couple of quick examples. In the State of Missouri, from 1 acre of corn you can generally count on about 135 bushels of corn from that single acre. If you take that corn to the grain elevator, the average price you will receive is about $405 from that single acre of corn. But if you take that raw product of corn and you add value to it, if you turn corn into ethanol, which is a corn-based fuel, there are about 378 gallons of ethanol and ethanol by-products that come forth from the processing of the corn from 1 acre, which is about $800, which is about twice the amount, as you add value to the corn. Obviously, corn going into cereal, over 6,700 boxes of corn flakes come from 1 acre of corn, with a profit margin of about $13,000. The same thing is true with soybeans. An acre of soybeans in Missouri will generally yield about 40 bushels per acre; again, about $350 per bushel. But if you take that acre of soybeans and turn it into vegetable oil or to soybean meal or to soy diesel or to any other value-added product, you are allowing farmers to reap the profits and the rewards of the value-added side of the processing of this raw product. Now, some of my colleagues talk about trying to complicate the Tax Code, and I want to briefly talk to those individuals, because what we want to do is try to make sure we have a fairer code. Why do we need this particular provision? Right now, if we were a corporation and we wanted to acquire a processing facility owned by another corporation, we would look to the Internal Revenue code, section 368. And assuming that we were selling this processing plant at $100 million, the amount of capital gains would be approximately $35 million. Well, under section 368, that amount of gain can be deferred. That amount of gain would be deferred. Similarly, an ESOP provision, employee stock ownership plan; section 1042 of the code would allow a deferral of that $35 million in gains, so that there would be no gain. A section of the code is available for those that participate in employee stock ownership plans, such that they would not have any gain, that the gain would be deferred. Even foreign corporations have a section of the code whereby they get some preferential treatment. And then we have farmer cooperatives. What we are trying to do is allow farmers who belong to farmer cooperatives to participate on the same level playing field. And right now they are not there. So what we have done through this section of the code is to allow the seller of a processing facility to defer that gain as long as that gain is reinvested as long as that gain is not reinvested in other assets that are owned by the seller. We want to make sure, and the White House told us that they want to the make sure, that this provision would not be used for sham transactions or the avoidance of tax liability. That was not the intent of the legislation. So we have cracked down and tightened up, and we put restrictions in to accomplish the goal, and that is to help those farmers who participate and our members of farmer cooperatives to allow them to reap the benefits of value-added agriculture. Again, we took the President up on his offer to work with the White House. And I commend those with Treasury and the White House. I also, again, commend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] for his steadfastness in working out this provision. I think it is a good bill, and I would urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2513. I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] for yielding me the time.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I accept the invitation of the preceding speaker to go beyond the rhetoric and talk about the outrages. Mr. Speaker, let not my words today be an indictment against the hard-working men and women that are our tax collectors that are trying to do the best job they can. But as a Member of the House Committee on Ways and Means, particularly the Subcommittee on Oversight, we have the responsibility of looking at the inner workings of the Internal Revenue Service, and here are some of the examples we have seen already this calendar year. Earlier this year, we learned that over 100 IRS agents conducted unauthorized inspections of individual taxpayer records. Example No. 2: The IRS delayed its notification to business owners of a new requirement to electronically file payroll taxes, and then the agency threatened these same business owners with severe sanctions for noncompliance. Example No. 3: The error and fraud rate in one program alone, the earned income credit, is nearly 21 percent. Five billion dollars were erroneously paid out of tax money last year alone. If these examples of mismanagement are not troubling enough, they pale in comparison to a recent Associated Press story that hit the newspapers in Missouri, and that is that the IRS is now targeting the victims of the great flood of 1993 with audits of these individual taxpayers who cannot document their losses because receipts were washed away in the flood. Now, Mr. Speaker, the next time that the rivers in this country run high, Americans should not have to look after their family heirlooms, their prized possessions, their loved ones, and their tax records. Clearly, the time has come to institute bold management reforms. I agree with the preceding speaker, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. We also have to begin to talk about fundamental reform of the tax system. We have to talk about a fundamental discourse about how to change and simplify the Tax Code. But this legislation will begin to implement that taxpayer service. Shifting the focus from audit quotas and collection goals to taxpayer service, to enhance taxpayer rights, allow individuals to collect attorney's fees when the IRS is wrong. It is time to return the word ``service'' to the Internal Revenue Service. This restructuring bill does that, and I urge its support.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, today I step on to the House floor to express gratitude to a true public servant for Missouri's Ninth Congressional District--Betty Pfaff. Betty has been working for the people of the Ninth District for the last 20 years. Her last official day was October 2, leaving behind a record of hard work, dedication, and service to others. Betty began her tenure during former Congressman Harold Volkmer's first campaign for office. After Mr. Volkmer won the seat in 1976, he invited Betty to join his staff. Betty stayed on through the duration of Mr. Volkmer's public service for 19 years and 3 months. Her responsibilities included casework and constituent services. What speaks volumes about Betty's character was her ability to continue to serve the people of Missouri's Ninth District for a newly elected Representative of a different political party. Her willingness to do so demonstrates her professionalism and stands as a testament that Betty Pfaff was not a servant of politics, but a servant of the people. Betty possesses a unique knowledge of the District. She is on a first-name basis with many of the constituents in northeast Missouri. She has been a valuable asset to the office of a new Member of Congress. I would not have been able to make the transition as smoothly without her. Mr. Speaker, you'll be happy to know that now that Betty is retired, she spends her free time as a grandmother to her three grandchildren, John Pfaff and Emily and Andrew Richards. In addition to her important role as grandmother, Betty intends to help her husband, Dwaine, with his business, Hannibal Glass. She also plans to continue her service in the community where she has made her home since 1964 as a volunteer. The people of Missouri's Ninth District are losing a humble, honorable servant. Betty, on behalf of all of whose lives you have touched, we thank you and wish you a long and happy retirement.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, as you know, October 5 through October 11 is National Fire Prevention Week. Today I want to take time out to recognize the firefighters back home in Missouri's Ninth Congressional District. While there are many local fire departments who demonstrate excellence within the community, one shining example is the Palmyra volunteer fire department. Celebrating its 100th anniversary, the eighteen members of the Palmyra volunteer fire department received an award earlier this year, naming it the top fire department in the entire State of Missouri. While they fight fires with the best of them, they truly are public servants. Nominated because of the community service performed by its members, the Palmyra fire department enjoys wide support from the local residents. Fire Chief Chuck Hoehne, a 30-year veteran of the department, said it well, ``Everything we do, the community is behind us. They support us 100 percent.'' Mr. Speaker, that is easy to believe once you learn more about the group. When the team is not busy with their jobs, such as bank managers, sales clerks, construction workers, and insurance salesmen, they are out in Palmyra educating residents about the importance of fire safety. They make trips to all the schools with the Stay Alive House, a model used to teach people how to escape from a burning building. Students also are invited to tour the fire station. Due in large part to the education provided by this exceptional team, I am pleased to report that fires are on the decrease in Palmyra-- something to celebrate during National Fire Prevention Week. Congratulations are in order for the Palmyra fire department, making northeastern Missouri a safer place to live.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I had initially intended to offer an amendment that would have increased appropriations by $2 million for the victim and witness program at the Department of Justice. However, in discussions with the gentleman from Kentucky Chairman Rogers, I have decided that a colloquy would be the best way to address my concerns. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with the gentleman from Kentucky Chairman Rogers the need to further address victims' rights, and I also want to commend the ranking minority member of the appropriations subcommittee for his commitment to offering valuable services such as victim coordinators, as well as a national notification system to those that have been the unfortunate victims of violent crime. Mr. Chairman, the American criminal justice system has neglected victims for far too long. As part of its responsibility, U.S. Attorney offices from across the country have recently established victim and witness assistance programs to close the gap between prosecutors and victims. I can tell you as a former prosecuting attorney in the State of Missouri, that as a result of increasing caseloads, prosecutors have been given the near impossible task of convicting the guilty, protecting the innocent, and providing much needed services to victims of crimes. Coordinators help victims of domestic violence and child abuse, as well as telemarketing and securities fraud, which often targets seniors, and even victims such as those that suffered in the Oklahoma City bombing. Clearly, Mr. Chairman, more should be done to meet the needs of these incredibly sensitive cases. Coordinators are an integral part in keeping victims at the center of the criminal justice system, rather than on the outside looking in. Victims deserve to be educated in the legal rights they have in the judicial system and deserve the emotional support that coordinators provide. As we here in Congress continue to crack down on criminals, the needs of victims should be equally elevated. Additionally, victim and witness assistance programs will be implementing a national notification system that ensures victims are kept informed of case developments. It is imperative that victims of domestic violence, rape or child molestation be notified of a criminal's release back into society. It is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that the U.S. Attorneys' Offices across the country will be able to move quickly in providing this service to victims. The victim and witness assistance program is important to ensure public confidence in our criminal justice system, to make sure that it continues to aggressively prosecute dangerous criminals, while at the same time servicing the rights of victims. It is my hope, with the gentleman from Kentucky Chairman Rogers, that I can work with the gentleman on an agreement to increase by $2 million the appropriation for the victim and witness assistance program in joint House and Senate conference negotiations. It is my belief, Mr. Chairman, that individuals who have been tragically victimized by criminals should not be victimized a second time by our criminal justice system.