Kenny Hulshof

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, consistent with the Republican leadership's policy on earmarks, I am requesting funding for Special Operations Forces Advanced Mission Planning Tools in fiscal year 2009, in H.R. 2638, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008, Continuing Resolution, from account 31 0603003A Aviation Advanced Technology. The entity to receive funding for this project is the Westar Aerospace & Defense Group, Inc., 4 Research Park Drive, St. Charles, MO 63304-5685. The funding would be used for the continued development of enterprise-enabled, integrated aviation tools and provide this ability to all Army aviation systems. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge this request (1) is not directed to an entity or program named or will be named after a sitting Member of Congress; (2) is not intended for a ``front'' or ``pass through'' entity; and (3) meets or exceeds all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable. I further certify that should this request be included in the bill, I will place a statement in the Congressional Record describing how the funds will be spent and justifying the use of Federal taxpayer funds.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, consistent with the Republican leadership's policy on earmarks, I am requesting funding for Chemical and Biological--Protective Hangars (CAB-PH) in fiscal year 2009, in H.R. 2638, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008, Continuing Resolution, from account 27 0602786A: Warfighter Technology. The entity to receive funding for this project is Production Products Inc., located at 1285 Dunn Road, St. Louis, Missouri 63138. The funding would be used for the development of Chemical and Biological-- Protective Hangars, CAB-PH, for the Army helicopter fleet. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge this request (1) is not directed to an entity or program named or will be named after a sitting Member of Congress; (2) is not intended for a ``front'' or ``pass through'' entity; and (3) meets or exceeds all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable. I further certify that should this request be included in the bill, I will place a statement in the Congressional Record describing how the funds will be spent and justifying the use of Federal taxpayer funds.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Marian Lonning, a special woman who has devoted her time, talents, and life to individuals with developmental disabilities. Mrs. Lonning, a proud parent, grandparent, and great-grandparent, will soon be recognized by Community Living for her tireless efforts to improve services for people with disabilities. I want to associate myself with the recognition provided by Community Living. Community Living, a not-for-profit agency in St. Charles County providing life-enriching services for people with disabilities, will present the award to Mrs. Lonning on October 18, 2008, at the organization's annual Legacy Ball. The Legacy Award is presented to an individual whose outstanding service to people with disabilities and the community as a whole leaves a lasting legacy for generations to come. Before coming to Missouri, Mrs. Lonning worked with people with developmental disabilities as a nurse and teacher. She and her husband, James, moved to St. Charles County in July 1968 from Kalamazoo, MI, and we are lucky to have her. In February 1969, Mrs. Lonning opened a Day Activity Center for children with developmental disabilities in the basement of Boonslick Christian Church in St. Charles. She had been approached by Jane Crider about starting a day program for children with severe developmental disabilities who were unable to pass the test for Boonslick State School. With the help of an assistant, Mrs. Lonning ran the center 3 days per week, serving 8 to 10 children. In 1974, the Day Activity Center transitioned to providing services for adults after Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 passed and children at the center were able to go to school. Additionally, Mrs. Lonning started the Day Activity Center Auxiliary, a support group for the parents of the center's participants, which still exists today. Mrs. Lonning served on the Senate Bill 40 Committee to help approve a countrywide property tax to provide and fund services for people with development disabilities. In 1977, the committee's efforts proved successful when the tax passed. Because of the Senate Bill 40's passage, the Day Activity Center was able to expand and was later taken under the wings of Community Living, Inc., when it was incorporated in 1978. The center eventually began providing service 5 days per week and hired more staff, including special education teachers. In 1980, a second center was opened in O'Fallon. Mrs. Lonning served as Director of the Day Activity Centers, now known as Support Services for Adults (SSA), until her retirement in 1989. In her retirement, Mrs. Lonning has remained active in championing those with disabilities, serving for 3 years on the Handicapped Facilities Board, now the Developmental Disabilities Resource Board, the entity that was created as a result of the Senate Bill 40 tax. She also served for three terms on Community Living's Board of Directors, serving as president, vice president, secretary, and as an executive committee member. Today I want to shine a spotlight on not only Mrs. Lonning's great and many achievements, but also on the vital role that we all play in ensuring that all children and particularly those with disabilities receive the best education possible. Mrs. Lonning believes firmly in providing quality services to people with disabilities throughout their lives, and today her vision has become a reality. Mrs. Lonning has said that she has always felt that God put her where he needed her to be. Furthermore, the motto from her alma mater, Pine Rest Nursing School, has guided her work throughout the years: ``It's only one life, it will soon be passed, only what's done for Christ will last.'' For these reasons, I am privileged to stand before this body and congratulate Mrs. Lonning on her receipt of this prestigious award.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a special woman who has more than left her mark on Missouri. Jean Hines, of Sullivan, has been named by Experience Works, provider of job training and employment opportunities for older Americans, as the Outstanding Older Worker from the State of Missouri. Experience Works serves over 20,000 older workers and local communities. Ms. Hines is a resident of the Ninth Congressional District. She works as a machinist; specifically, she works in finishing operations for the Cardin Machine Shop, which makes precision machine parts for the aerospace industry for companies such as Boeing and Lockheed. Experience Works began in the summer of 1963 when President John F. Kennedy decided to make poverty reduction a focus of his anticipated 1964 reelection campaign. Shortly thereafter, President Lyndon B. Johnson, looking to help heal a shocked Nation after President Kennedy's assassination, took the advice of several national leaders and declared war on poverty. On October 5, 1965, President Johnson signed the Nelson Amendment to the Economic Opportunity Act, which funded the ``green thumb'' project of the National Farmers Union. Soon after, Green Thumb, Inc. (now Experience Works) became the first nonprofit organization whose sole function was to help provide jobs for disadvantaged rural Americans. While the Economic Opportunity Act stalled in Congress, Lady Bird Johnson helped press the initiative forward. A proposal suggested taking ``the 'green thumbs' of poor, older, and retired farmers and put them to work to beautify our highways.'' The First Lady said that ``an opportunity is presented here to provide [older farmers] with useful employment for which they are fully qualified, and at the same time. to beautify highways for the benefit of all our people.'' Over time, that program went from beautification projects in four States to a major Federal workforce initiative known as the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP), which today provides training, employment, and community service opportunities to thousands of seniors across the country. I believe this program is an effective tool, which helps to strengthen families, communities, and our Nation by providing older workers with opportunities to learn, work, and serve others. Many of Missouri's seniors have benefited from this program. Ms. Hines will be honored this week in Washington, DC, during National Older Workers Week. Today I want to shine a spotlight on not only Ms. Hines' achievements, but also on the vital role that older workers play in our Nation's economy. Ms. Hines' tireless commitment to her work has helped break down the barriers to hiring, training, and retaining older workers. Indeed, she is a role model for other older workers and employers. She has shown that much can be achieved and attained after the traditional retirement age. For these reasons, I am privileged to stand before this body and congratulate Ms. Hines on her receipt of this prestigious award. It is much-deserved.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, when standing at the tops of the levees overlooking the Mississippi River, the mind's eye can still recall the army of sandbags atop the dirt and sand. You can still remember the smell of diesel fumes from the drainage pumps sending water out over the levee walls this summer. Thankfully, after the waters rose and fell, the sun shines again in my district. The floods are by no means forgotten. Winfield even today is still recovering from levee breaks, and LaGrange, Clarksville and Louisiana are still disposing of debris left behind throughout their towns. However, the signs of water lines against levees and unprotected structures mean lives are moving toward normalcy. After weeks of fighting floodwaters this summer, Jeff McReynolds gets to see his wife and baby at night, and Mark Campbell eats meals at home. In short, Northeast Missouri is beginning to recognize normal again. Growing up in the shadow of Mississippi River levees, I know the stress and anguish a flood brings. I also know that those who sandbag levees to save their neighbor's home or farm are some of the biggest heroes we have in Missouri. So, with that said, let me now honor Canton Emergency Services Director Jeff McReynolds; Hannibal's Emergency Services Director John Hark; LaGrange City Administrator Mark Campbell; Alexandria Mayor Bob Davis; West Quincy's Roger Sutter and Norman Haerr; Louisiana Mayor Don Giltner; LaGrange City Administrator Mark Campbell; Lewis County Emergency Manager David Keith; Des Moines River Drainage District Chairman John Winkleman; Louisiana City Administrator Bob Jenne; Pike County Emergency Manager Al Murry; Marion County Drainage District Commissioner Brent Hoerr; South River Drainage District Commissioner David Bleigh; Gregory Landing Drainage District Commissioner Kent Leftwich; and Clarksville Mayor JoAnne Smiley for leading the efforts to protect their hometowns. I also thank Colonel Setliff and Colonel Sinkler of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. And, finally, I thank every citizen, National Guard soldier and government official that helped saved our towns. These men and women are all true heroes. There is also sadness in Missouri, for not all of our levees along the Mississippi River held. In addition to the tragic flooding in Iowa and Illinois, many areas of Lincoln County saw levees breached, and the air filled with news choppers that captured images of the flooding. This flooding has a profound effect on everyone who lives or works near the river because once you lose a crop or are forced to rebuild a house, you will always be able to empathize with those who find water where a home or farm should be. And just as friends, neighbors and perfect strangers helped shore up Clarksville, Canton and West Quincy's levees, we Missourians helped Iowans, Illinoisans and our brothers and sisters elsewhere in Missouri rebuild their lives this summer and now into this fall. Communities up and down the Mississippi River have exhausted themselves and their resources to fight this flood. To truly honor their service, we must continue to ensure that FEMA and our other federal agencies and resources are committed to the cause of recovery from this and future disasters. We will remain diligent in this effort, for to do otherwise would cheapen the work that the thousands of volunteers in my district and elsewhere in Missouri put forward on this effort. I could not look JoAnne Smiley and all our other volunteers and coordinators in the face without making this commitment, for this is what their commitment deserves and requires.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, today the United States House of Representatives took a large and much anticipated step towards protecting every American's 2nd Amendment right by passing H.R. 6842, The National Capital Security and Safety Act. The amendment to this legislation, authored by Representative Childers, is a much needed improvement to the underlying bill and will help the District of Columbia to fully comply with the United States Supreme Court's decision in D.C. vs. Heller. Today is truly a great day for every American as Congress has mandated that the stringent restrictions placed on citizens of the District of Columbia and their ability to possess firearms has been replaced with a law that is in line with what our founding fathers originally intended. It is my hope that other cities and municipalities with similar, restrictive gun ownership laws will now change those laws to come in line with our Constitution.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to mark a significant date in higher education in northeast Missouri. My congressional district is privileged to be home to many honorable and successful institutions of higher learning. Among them, Hannibal-LaGrange College this very month celebrates its sesquicentennial. For 150 years, Hannibal-LaGrange has provided quality Christian education to untold thousands of students while remaining true to its God-given principles and beliefs. The humble journey began in LaGrange, MO, about 30 miles north of the college's current campus. The college opened its doors on September 15, 1858, as the LaGrange Male and Female Seminary, founded by the Wyaconda Baptist Association. Steering this ship on the first leg of its journey was William Ellis. Ellis was the college's first president and just 24 years old when classes started in September 1858. The school's young journey was derailed just 4 years later when Union troops commandeered the college's facilities for use during the Civil War. Once the college reopened in 1866, Dr. Joshua Flood Cook, the new president, faced the awesome tasks of replacing equipment, textbooks, faculty and staff, as well as rebuilding campus facilities, community support and confidence. Cook successfully fought these battles and served as president for 30 years, advancing the institution perhaps more than any other single individual in its history. After 70 years in its LaGrange home, college leadership accepted an overture to move the campus south to the northeast edge of Hannibal. In 1927, Hannibal-LaGrange College opened the doors to its Hannibal campus, which still sits today on those 110 acres of scenic hills and woods on the bluffs overlooking the Mississippi River. The college continued to grow and serve the community through the middle part of the 20th century. In 1973, however, the college faced its first real test since the move to Hannibal. Inflation and other financial strains put the college's very future in jeopardy. Community leaders, area residents and HLG personnel forcefully answered in one voice, raising $85,000 to keep the college's doors open and averting what would have been the college's immediate closure. While 1973 marked the college's first test in Hannibal, it wasn't the last or most severe. Sixteen years later, on June 22, 1989, a small fire that started in the college's cafeteria area soon grew to a raging inferno, swallowing many of the college's vital facilities, including the campus' administration building, auditorium and gymnasium. Black smoke billowed into the air, visible from miles away. Emergency responders worked through the night to douse the fire. But doused with the fire were hopes and dreams for the coming fall semester and the collective futures of incoming students. By daylight, as only charred remains of the structures stood, any thoughts of a successful future vanished into the air with the remnants of the previous night's smoke. However, President Dr. Paul Brown began the next morning with a pledge to hold classes on campus that very fall. Dr. Brown led college trustees and personnel on a massive effort to rebuild and expand the campus. A large burlap tent was erected on campus for chapel services that fall, classes were held in dormitory basements and trailers on campus and a massive reconstruction program began in an effort to rebuild what had been lost. Just 3 years later, following the construction of a new sports complex, computer center and cafeteria, the college dedicated its new administration building under the leadership of Dr. Brown and current President Dr. Woodrow Burt. On the cornerstone of this building, built on the site of the administration building lost in the 1989 fire, is a passage from Isaiah 61:3, ``A crown of beauty instead of ashes.'' This building was later renamed for Dr. Burt, who became president of the college in 1995 and still proudly yet humbly serves in that position today. But the journey for HLG is not complete. The vision for the college's growth and service continued forward over the past decade, as the college constructed a new dormitory and the Roland Fine Arts Center, the centerpiece of the college's recent expansions. The college is also in the midst of a $30-million campaign, ``Building for the Future,'' which calls for the construction of a new library, allied health and science center and dormitory renovations, as well as enhancing the college's endowment. Throughout this journey, beating in the heart of HLG is a desire to serve Christ, embodied in the college's motto, ``Knowledge for Service.'' HLG strengthened this commitment over the last 4 years through its implementation of missions programs that serve both domestic and international missions opportunities year-round. HLG is a multiple recipient of the Courts Redford Award, the top award among U.S. colleges and universities for mobilizing students for missions with the North American Mission Board. In May of this year, HLG was named number one among 314 colleges and universities that send students to work with the NAMB. Madam Speaker, I was honored to stand before this Chamber 10 years ago to commend HLG's commitment to excellence and its use of knowledge for service during their 140th anniversary. I am again privileged to stand before this body and congratulate my friends at HLG for 150 years of quality Christian education. May God continue to bless this fine institution for many years to come.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 40th anniversary of an organization that has profoundly enriched the lives of individuals with intellectual disabilities and society as a whole through sports competition. Special Olympics International has promoted the benefits of sports competition for individuals with intellectual disabilities since 1968, when Eunice Kennedy Shriver founded the Special Olympics and convened its first International Games in Chicago. Two years later, in 1971, Special Olympics Missouri opened its doors and started programs for Missourians with intellectual disabilities. For more than 36 years, Special Olympics Missouri has been providing sports training and competitions for athletes ages 8 and up. The first Missouri Summer Games were held in 1975, that same year Missouri Special Olympics sent its first athletes to International Summer Games. Except for a brief hiatus in Columbia, Missouri--my hometown--the State Summer Games have been held at Fort Leonard Wood. Today, Missourians from the ages of 8 to 80 compete in Special Olympics, with an average age around 25. Special Olympics provide year- round sports training and athletics competition for Missouri's children and adults with intellectual disabilities. Special Olympics Missouri currently serves more than 15,000 athletes with mental disabilities, in 19 sports, at 152 competitions throughout Missouri, with 4 statewide competitions, and more than 1,370 of Missouri's finest citizens who serve as volunteer coaches. Special Olympics Missouri athletes have participated in competitions all over the World from Ames, Iowa in our own backyard to Anchorage, Alaska, Toronto, Canada, Dublin, Ireland, Nagano, Japan, and just last year--Shanghai, China. Through sports, these individuals develop improved physical fitness and motor skills, greater self-confidence, and a more positive self- image. My colleagues know that as Co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on Youth Sports, I wholeheartedly believe that sports involvement improves one's health, character, and leadership skills. The Caucus believes in promoting the values of sportsmanship, civility, respect, safety, fun and fitness among the players, coaches, parents, and officials. I am proud to tell you that Special Olympics promotes these same values in its programs and especially in its Healthy Athletes and Unified Sports programs. In recent years, Special Olympics Missouri has expanded its reach o address health and fitness issues unique to individuals with intellectual disabilities. The Healthy Athletes Program provides health screenings in conjunction with competitions. Special Olympics Unified Sports is a program that combines approximately equal numbers of Special Olympics athletes and athletes without mental disabilities (called Partners) on sports teams for training and competition. Throughout the year, in a variety of sports ranging from basketball to golf to figure skating, Unified Sports athletes improve their physical fitness, sharpen their skills, challenge the competition and have fun, too. The concept of combining athletes with mental disabilities and those without was first introduced in the mid-1980s to provide another level of challenge for higher ability athletes and to promote equality and inclusion. Today, the initiative includes virtually all Special Olympics sports. Unified Sports enables athletes to: Learn new sports, develop higher-level sports skills and have new competition experiences; Experience a sense of meaningful inclusion, as each athlete is ensured of playing a valued role on the team; Socialize with peers and form friendships (the initiative provides a forum for positive social interaction between teammates and often leads to long-lasting friendships) and; Participate in their communities and have choices outside of Special Olympics. In 1997, TIME magazine published a story about a Unified Sports partner from Missouri, Ryan Brimer of Boonville. The Missouri Police Chiefs Association has been a big supporter of Special Olympics Missouri through its Law Enforcement Torch Run. What began as a 30-mile run is now a four-day relay that covers more than 950 miles and 1,000 runners. Now more than a run, the Torch Run is a campaign to raise awareness and funds for Special Olympics. It originates at 25 different locations around the State of Missouri and ends at the State Summer Games. Nearly 200 agencies and 2,500 officers volunteer all year to make the Torch Run happen. In fact, Missouri's event consistently ranks as one of the top ten fundraising Torch Runs in the world. I am proud of Missouri's law enforcement officers who give of their time for this noble cause. Special Olympics themes of inclusion, health, sportsmanship, leadership, and fun in sports make the world and Missouri a better place for individuals with and without disabilities. I am proud to congratulate Special Olympics on its years of achievement and I thank Special Olympics on behalf of all Missourians.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, in my 12 years in Congress, I have been privileged to work with numerous organizations throughout my congressional district; agencies that are making an impact in the future of their communities. It is in that vein that today I wish to recognize Kids In Motion for their service to Hannibal, Missouri. Twelve years ago, local law enforcement officials and concerned citizens of Hannibal met to discuss reported gang activity in the town. As a result of the meeting, several leaders in the community took upon themselves the responsibility and initiative to create this program, Kids In Motion, as a program designed to combat these problems. While several local volunteers stepped up to make KIM a success, I specifically remember meeting numerous times with Marilyn Cohn and Sherri Steinmann, two local business and community leaders who dedicated many of their weeks, months, and even years in the program's infancy to make sure this effort was a success. KIM is designed as a pre-employment and life success training program for at-risk youth between the ages of 12 and 15 years old. KIM's mission is a simple, yet important, one for the region. The program teaches teens and pre-teens to value work, value their community, and to value their future. Youth are provided transportation to and from their project sites, and they also receive breakfast and lunch. In Hannibal, KIM has partnered with the local Parks and Recreation Department, Tourism Bureau, Public School District, Housing Authority, and other civic groups and agencies in summer projects to benefit the community. I've had the privilege of speaking at several KIM programs in the past, encouraging KIM members to apply themselves to their work and their communities as well. Being a former prosecutor, I've explained to the attendees the importance of choices they'll be making in their lives and how those choices can help shape their lives in years to come. Each year, I've marveled at the program's impact in the lives of pre-teens in Hannibal, shaping their lives and their futures for the impressionable and important years to come. Each year we read about a striking decline in the number of volunteers, particularly younger citizens, who choose to take part in civic or community betterment efforts. Yet through this program, we see the rekindling of that flame, all the while providing a vehicle for these at-risk youth to spend their summers in a productive, rather than destructive, manner. KIM encourages personal responsibility and self-reliance, preparing participants to successfully enter the workforce. Enrolled youth members are able to perform various community service projects in a supervised setting to benefit their community. While performing these services, they learn teamwork, good work habits, and a respect for authority. Through KIM's early intervention into the lives of these youth, the organization is able to redirect values and influence positive behavior and lifestyle choices. KIM also attempts to empower youth to improve their lives and eventually achieve their dreams. Now under the watchful eye of Amy Vaughn and Douglass Community Services in Hannibal, the program is taking steps to not only serve Hannibal, but the surrounding areas as well. Amy dreamed for some time of taking the program to different communities in the region, helping to provide each of them with the opportunities afforded Hannibal over the last decade. Now, Amy's dream is becoming a reality. This month, the program is expanding to Louisiana and Bowling Green in Pike County, Missouri. Each of the three participating communities realizes the value of this organization and how it can affect the lives of youth both now and in the future. KIM is very special because the effort was formed as a volunteer organization with no selfish motivation whatsoever. The program was pursued as a way not just to help address community concerns, but to provide a better and brighter future for Hannibal's leaders of tomorrow. Those efforts have now expanded beyond Hannibal's borders and beyond the wildest dreams of success held by the founders of the organization. Local law enforcement agencies, community businesses, business leaders, and local school officials have joined forces to make this project a success. But the selfless nature of the program is what continues its appeal yet today. As June is Kids In Motion's annual kickoff month for their summer program, they have named this month ``Kids In Motion'' month. On this occasion, I congratulate KIM on their tremendous record to date, and I wish them continued success for future years to come.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I submit the following: Requesting Member: Congressman Kenny Hulshof. Bill Number: H.R. 5658, Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Account: Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, Budget Activity 02, Airlift Aircraft, C-17. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The Boeing Company. Address of Requesting Entity: The Boeing Company, P.O. Box 516, St. Louis, MO, 63166. Description of Request: The C-17 is the world's most effective and flexible strategic/tactical airlifter. The C-17 has revolutionized the movement of troops and equipment into battle by allowing their delivery to parts of the world that were previously not accessible by conventional airlifters. As per Air Force Unfunded Priority List (UPL) #6, C-17 (+ 15 aircraft), $3.9B, procures 15 C-17s, keeping only active strategic airlift production line open (and part of ``required'' force as per this UPL).

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I submit the following: Requesting Member: Congressman Kenny Hulshof. Bill Number: H.R. 5658, Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Account: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), Aviation Advanced Technology. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Westar Aerospace & Defense Group, Inc., 4 Research Park Drive, St. Charles, MO 63304-5685; On behalf of: Aeromechanics Division, AMSRD-AMR-AE-A, Aviation Engineering Directorate, Bldg 4488 Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5000. Address of Requesting Entity: Westar Aerospace & Defense Group, Inc., 4 Research Park Drive, St. Charles, MO 63304-5685; Aeromechanics Division, AMSRD-AMR-AE-A, Aviation Engineering Directorate, Bldg 4488, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5000. Description of Request: To provide $10 million in funding to continue the development of integrated Aviation tools and provide this ability to all Army Aviation systems to include UH-60 series, OH-58D, AH-64D), Fixed Wing and UAS systems. The complete integrated aviation solution includes implementing the automated maintenance test flight tool, automated weight and balance software, and integration with current logistics and Aviation Mission Planning systems. These products are urgently needed by combat units in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, and will result in significant increases in mission effectiveness and safety for our warfighters. These tools will be used by our military's aircraft operators to greatly improve their effectiveness and situational awareness, which will improve support to the warfighter from materiel developers.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, the President has, for the second time, vetoed a bill that would help Midwestern farmers. Once again, I rise to vote for Missouri's family farmers and to override President's veto. I think it's interesting that for over a year, opponents have said prices are high, farmers don't need a safety net, as if we can predict with certainty the market price of commodities 5 years down the road. Today those opponents claim prices may drop, causing the safety net to be too expensive. Well, with all respect, which is it? Sixteen percent of this bill provides a responsible safety net for farmers when the market turns south. And let's make no mistake. Farmers don't want to farm for a government check. Farmers want to farm for the market. And what is the cost to the American taxpayer? Six cents a day. In my mind, six cents a day is not too much to pay to ensure that we continue to have the safest, most abundant food supply at the lowest cost. Now, we have seen what happens when we offshore or energy production. What will happen when we offshore our food production? Thank the Lord above, literally, thank the Lord above that we can put three square meals a day on our tables from the bounty of our country's own farmers. This bill is not perfect. It doesn't contain all the reforms that the other side would want. But under their plan, which failed 117-309, most of the farms and ranches would not be able to survive the erosion in farm income. That's according to the Agriculture and Food Policy Center at Texas A&M. Some people just can't take yes for an answer. 1,054 organizations, from MoveOn.Org to the USA Rice Federation, support this bill. I know it's tough to do, but I urge my colleagues to vote to override the President's veto and provide this safety net. And I appreciate the gentleman for the time.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. I thank the tag team here for allowing me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report, and I commend my friend for his patience and his persistence in bringing to this body this consensus product. I realize that fewer and fewer Americans have a direct connection to the land. One reason is because it's becoming quite tough to make a living in production agriculture. And certainly that disconnect to rural America is evident here on the floor of the House. Dwight Eisenhower once said, ``Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you're a thousand miles away from the cornfield.'' Or to put it another way, Mr. Chairman, I quote from the saying on the plaque in your office that says, ``If farming were easy, Congressmen would do it.'' Well, I am a farmer. I'm the son of a farmer. I'm the grandson of a farmer. Agriculture runs in cycles, and sometimes those cycles are pretty volatile. In September of 2005 during our corn harvest after Hurricane Katrina, the price of corn at a river terminal in Southeast Missouri was $1.40, and I don't recall anybody other than yours truly coming to the floor to extol that fact. Yesterday, that same bushel of corn would have brought $5.97 at least on the Chicago Board of Trade, and even that isn't a windfall. And because we know that it is 47 percent more this year to plant one acre of corn in Missouri than it was last year, fertilizer is up 112 percent. Grain contracts and loans are getting harder to come by. Debt has increased by 30 percent in the last 5 years. We know farming looks a lot today like it did before the crash of the 1980s. And we also know with all respect to those who talk about profligate spending, that about three-quarters of the farm bill dollar in this bill will not go to farmers but to the equally noble goal of ensuring that Americans have enough to eat. And quite frankly I expect that most of the farm payments to production agriculture in this bill will never have to be paid because the market price is going to be above the trigger level. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the farm bill. In doing so, I thank my good friend Chairman Peterson for bringing a bill we can all support to the floor. I must say that without his leadership, we would have never reached this point. This, Mr. Speaker, is the last farm bill I will vote on as a Member of this great House. And as I do so, I think of my dad, the founder of my family's farm. He built our farm using not Government handouts but hard work, business savvy and penny-pinching. By creating this successful small business he was able to save just enough to plant the next year's crop and send his only son to college. Many who oppose this bill would probably point to my dad as one of those rich farmers who doesn't need a safety net. In response, I quote Dwight Eisenhower, ``farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you're a thousand miles from the corn field.'' Those of us who actually farm, know farming isn't easy. We know that it now costs $534, or 47 percent more than last year, to plant 1 acre of corn in Missouri and we know fertilizer is up 112 percent from last year. We know that farming looks a lot like it did in the 1970s. For those who don't remember, during the 1970s we had conditions much like today; healthy world demand took prices to all-time highs. Many farmers cashed in their land's equity and bought new land to chase these high prices. Then Government policies changed, including the grain embargo to the Soviet Union after their invasion of Afghanistan, and the market crashed. I remember that policy well; it was the first time I realized that factors beyond our farm gate could determine the fate of our farm. I later learned that it nearly cost us our farm. Ultimately, the crash of the 1980s caused thousands of farms to go under and when they did they took with them 300 agricultural banks, countless business that depended on farmers, and even some entire rural communities. The similarities to today are striking. Today farm debt sets a new record every year, increasing 30 percent, or $52.8 billion, in the last 5 years. The price of land has once again risen to 1970s-esque highs, climbing 67 percent since 2003. Now I am not saying that we can expect a crash, I don't know what the market will do over the next few years--no one does. What I am saying is that now is not the time to support irresponsible cuts to the safety net. Now I know, the opponents of the farm bill will say they don't support irresponsible cuts, they only want ``reform.'' There is reform in this bill, there is a lower income cap, there are reforms to the loan programs and the bill does away with the three-entity rule. I know, the reformers will counter by saying these reforms don't go far enough. But if their reform plan--the Kind-Flake Amendment--would have passed and prices would have declined during the life of the farm bill, then ``most of the farms and ranches would not be able to survive the erosion in farm income,'' according to the independent Agriculture and Food Policy Center at Texas A&M University. The bottom line is that Chairman Peterson has engineered an excellent compromise. It provides $209 billion for food stamps and school lunches. The bill also provides $25 billion for conservation programs, including enough funding to enroll nearly 13 million acres, or an area the size of West Virginia, into the Conservation Security Program. And the bill provides $35 billion to help farmers stay afloat. The good news is if prices stay at their current level, most of those authorized dollars will never have to be paid. The safety net in the 2002 Farm Bill cost $20 billion less than what it was projected to cost, because commodity prices stayed high. This bill is not a windfall; it is a basic safety net for our farmers. This safety net costs each taxpayer 6 cents a day. In return, farmers provide the safest, most abundant food supply at the lowest cost--just 11 percent of our income goes toward food, the lowest total in the world. So I ask all of my colleagues to support this compromise. I am sure every Member can find things to oppose in this bill, there are certainly parts I oppose and I know there are even parts of the bill that Chairman Peterson opposes. But at the end of the day, we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the farmer. Support the farm bill.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I haven't had the privilege of meeting the newest Member of this body who took the oath of office yesterday, Mr. Foster, but I, as everyone did, rose to my feet and applauded as he swore to protect this country. And I'm mindful of what was said last night on the floor of the House, that I wonder what's passing through his mind as the first vote he cast as we all became caught up in this maelstrom of ethics discussion. And I would say to him, I know he's not in the Chamber, but perhaps as he reviews the Record, as an incoming freshman in January of 1997, as we commenced the 105th Congress, and I see some of my classmates here on the floor, I remember the first vote I cast was for the Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, who was then under a cloud of ethics. And I remember the last vote I cast as a freshman Member was whether or not to impeach a sitting President of the United States. So my freshman term began and ended with this issue of ethics. Ironically, as my days in this Chamber wind down, we are embroiled once again in a partisan struggle about the integrity of this institution. I was on the floor last night during the debate, and many who spoke don't even know where the Ethics Committee is located in the Capitol. That's a good thing. That means, then, that you've never had the occasion to be called in front of the committee or to render testimony or to provide some information. And yet it is so vitally important to the integrity of this institution. My bona fides, again, I listened with some interest to incoming freshmen Members who debated this last night, that the Ethics Committee has been broken, hasn't worked for however many years, and yet I beg to differ in the sense that I was tapped as a noncommittee member to sit on an investigative subcommittee, and we sat and we resolved, appropriately, I think, the matter with a former Member from Alabama. I don't need to name his party. It's irrelevant. The House rules apply to everyone equally. Whether you're a backbencher or whether you're one of the most powerful members of leadership, it doesn't matter. But I participated in that investigative subcommittee and then was actually appointed to the committee itself. I remember standing right here in this very spot as this body voted to expel a Member from Ohio, that extraordinary remedy of substituting the will of this House for the will of the voters of then the 17th District of Ohio. And we did that. And the process worked. The Ethics Committee continued to handle many sensitive matters, many of those never seeing the light of day, appropriately, because when a baseless or meritless claim is brought against one of the number of this House, it shouldn't be debated or discussed on the front pages of the newspaper but should be dealt with down in the basement and, as appropriate, then brought to the attention of the American public. So those confidentiality rules are important and necessary. I objected to the rules changes that were made, my friend from Tennessee mentioned that as well last night, that unilaterally forced upon then the minority, and I objected to those. And let me point out again, as my friend from Tennessee did, that we changed those rules because it was a unilateral action, and that was appropriate for our majority at the time then to say we should redo this in a bipartisan fashion. And then, of course, may I claim, the ``infamous'' vote on Medicare part D and allegations that were made. And then suddenly in my time on the committee, I was the chairman of the investigative subcommittee to investigate allegations. We didn't know where the allegations were going to lead us. I issued the report and admonished publicly the then- majority leader on our side of the aisle. I was removed from the committee because of that. More disturbing was the fact that there were professional staff that were fired as a result of that, good, decent, honorable professionals who were fired as a result of that report. Certainly not our finest hour. And there are still some relationships on our side of the aisle that have been strained personally to this day because of those actions. But the wisest man I ever knew, my father, he never finished college. May he rest in peace. He had a single mantra that I remember from a kid growing up on the farm to those hallowed Halls, and that mantra was simply: The only thing worth keeping in life is keeping your good name, and you keep your good name by standing up and doing what's right. And I will leave this body with that name intact. I used to believe that an outside entity had no place in the ethics process. But after this renewed partisanship on a committee that should not be partisan, I came to a different conclusion, and I voted with the majority last night as one of the handful on our side that believed that perhaps this might be the way out. And as I leave this august body, I hope and pray that I have not damaged the institution by my vote, but that will be for a future Congress and future Congresses to determine. The former chairman of the committee, my friend from Washington's predecessor, Mr. Hefley of Colorado, he and I used to believe that if we simply provided the resources for the committee to reward staff, not punish them for doing their jobs, to provide some subpoena power, that the committee itself could continue to hold up the integrity of this institution. But again, seemingly, that is not the way forward as far as it relates to ethics, and so last night I crossed the aisle and voted for this. But we are here today for a further purpose. A good and decent, honorable man who has the integrity of this institution at stake has been impugned, in my view; so, unfortunately, we then come to this point of personal privilege. I have reviewed the letter from my friend, and she is my friend, the March 11 letter that suggests that rules have been violated by the disclosure of a professional opinion about the merits or lack of merits of the proposal we voted on last night. And I will say again for the purpose of the Record that, in my view, rule 7, subparagraph d, and the subparagraphs beneath that rule, that there has been no violation of those matters as it relates to the disclosure. This was not the disclosure of any fact or nature of a complaint. This was not the disclosure of any executive session proceedings. It was not the disclosure of any report, study, or document that expresses views, findings, or recommendations in connection with activities of ethics investigation. So as I go through those subparagraphs, those words are important, as we know, not just legally but ethically to determine whether or not this disclosure by Mr. Kellner, who I know personally, having worked with him on the committee, is a very professional, capable individual. I do not find as a sitting Member that anything of the disclosure of Mr. Kellner's letter has violated House rules. Having said that, I am mindful again of what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster) had to remind us of, and it, hopefully, was a reminder, that we have a privilege to serve here. This is a privilege granted to us. Each of us has taken the same oath of office that Mr. Foster took in the well yesterday. And inherent in that oath of office is the belief that the integrity of this institution is more important than any single Member serving here. To think that these same feet that used to walk barefoot down our cotton rows have had the privilege of walking the marble Halls of Congress for the last, now, 12 years, this is something that the integrity of the institution is more important than a single Member. And I can only wonder about those who are here witnessing today, as they excitedly have come to Washington, DC, maybe for their first-ever visit, and they come to the House Gallery, and there must be thrust upon them this discussion about whether Members of Congress are ethical or not, and it saddens me. So I implore simply all that are here and those that aren't here and for those that are going to come to this body, in order to bring about and reinforce the trust that the 300 million people across the country from sea to shining sea have in this institution, we must have a functioning ethics process. We don't. And when there are charges and countercharges that, unfortunately, necessitate bringing a point of personal privilege, we do not serve this institution well. And so I tell the gentleman, with whom I have occasionally disagreed as it relates to ethics, that I think you are an honorable, decent man who has the integrity of this institution deeply in your heart, and I support you and urge all colleagues to consider the institution and the damage that we perhaps are doing by this partisan warfare.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that we are taking up mental health parity today. I support mental health and substance abuse parity, as does most of this body. But there are a few details of this bill I would like to change to ensure that true parity be the final result of the legislation before us. But because this is brought up under a closed rule, these vital changes cannot be made, thus I will oppose this bill. Let me add at the outset that I have only the utmost respect for my friend and fellow Health Subcommittee member Jim Ramstad. He is a champion on this issue, and the tenants of mental health parity that most here support are in no-small-part thanks to his intelligent, passionate advocacy. I thank the gentleman for that example and his service to this institution. September 18, the Senate voice voted S. 558, legislation that was the product of input and agreement between mental health advocates, policy experts, health providers, employers, and authoring legislators. I am concerned that in passing the language in this bill, this House will be marginalizing itself--that in passing a bill with no real hopes of adoption by the other body this body will be seen as out-of-touch, a secondary player, and at worst could hold up much needed mental health legislation. I would like to highlight two key differences between the House and Senate bills, using the language from the Senate compromise bill--the codification of the DSM- IV, Diagnostic Statistical Manual, and protection of Medical Management.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, on February 25, 2008, I was unavoidably detained and missed votes. Listed below are the votes I missed and how I would have voted had I been here. H. Res. 978, Rollcall No. 69: Expressing support for the designation of the week of March 3-7 as ``School Social Work Week'' to promote awareness of the vital role of social workers in schools, and in the community as a whole. Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes.'' H. Res. 930, Rollcall No. 70: Supporting the goals and ideals of ``Career and Technical Education Month.'' Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes.'' H. Res. 944, Rollcall No. 71: Honoring the service and accomplishments of Lieutenant General Russel L. Honore, United States Army, for his 37 years of service on behalf of the United States. Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, on February 6, 2008, I was unavoidably detained and missed votes. Listed below are the votes I missed and how I would have voted had I been there. H. Res. 867, rollcall No. 29, Commending the Houston Dynamo soccer team for winning the 2007 Major League Soccer Cup: Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes.'' H. Res. 942, rollcall No. 30, Recognizing the significance of Black History Month: Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes.'' H. Res. 943, rollcall No. 31, Remembering the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster and honoring its crew members, who lost their lives on January 28, 1986: Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, on February 12, 2008, I was unavoidably detained and missed votes. Listed below are the votes I missed and how I would have voted had I been there. H. Res. 954, rollcall No. 43--Honoring the life of senior Border Patrol agent Luis A. Aguilar, who lost his life in the line of duty near Yuma, Arizona, on January 19, 2008. Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes.'' H. Res. 909, rollcall No. 44--Commemorating the courage of the Haitian soldiers that fought for American independence in the ``Siege of Savannah'' and for Haiti's independence and renunciation of slavery. Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes.'' H. Con. Res. 281, rollcall No. 45--Celebrating the birth of Abraham Lincoln and recognizing the prominence the Declaration of Independence played in the development of Abraham Lincoln's beliefs. Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. HULSHOF

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

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. I thank the gentleman for yielding. It's Friday. We're about to go home. What have we done this week? Well, we've seen earmarks for golf courses air-dropped into the Defense appropriations conference report. The Woodstock Hippie Museum is now back in play for Federal dollars. Is there any dispute that Congress has earned its 11 percent approval rating. Today's bridge to nowhere take us to Albany, New York where lawmakers of that State's legislature will enjoy a per diem write-off for days that they are not working in their State capital. I say to my friend from Washington, imagine if you were an IRS tax compliance officer, probably with an approval rating higher than Congress, and this was the scenario presented to you. A hypothetical State, we'll call it State Y, begins its legislative session in early January and adjourns its legislative calendar at the end of June. Nothing unusual about that. But this particular State legislature extends its session, declares itself to be in session for the remainder of the year, even though no legislative business is conducted. The question before the IRS is, should those lawmakers be entitled to a $150 a day per diem for days that they are not in their State capital? The IRS ruled, correctly in my view, that they should not be entitled to this special tax break. Well, notwithstanding that, in this bill, tucked away, is a provision that basically says that this per diem is allowed for all 365 days. And for those of you that are quickly doing the math on the back of your envelope, $150 plus a day equals $55,000 a year. Now, who foots that bill? Taxpayers from Missouri, taxpayers from the State of Washington, taxpayers from Massachusetts. Now, I will give credit, I see my friend from Oregon is here, who, in committee, voted with us, as well as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) that this was an inappropriate provision. I applaud the gentlemen for that. The IRS in its tax policy and priority guidance, in other words, the red flags that the IRS really wanted to take a look at was, in fact, this specific provision. The IRS had raised a red flag. But because of the powerful chairman, I see him on the floor, my good friend from New York, the powerful chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and the powerful chairman of the Rules Committee, who coincidentally happen to hail from the State in question, instead of a red flag by the IRS, they now have to wave a white flag. And again, taxpayers across the country are on the hook. I would just say this, and I say this somewhat tongue in cheek. When we get to the larger debate about the alternative minimum tax, I think one thing that all of us agree upon, of course, is that with the intent of that tax we have gone far afield. Unfortunately, I suspect we are going to have a lot of finger-pointing and partisanship and Republicans didn't do this and didn't pay attention or whatever. I would simply point out that facts are stubborn things in the fact that in 1969 I think the party in control during that session of Congress creating the tax was then the Democratic majority, and I seem to recall that the Republican Congress sent to a Democratic President a bill that would have completely, finally, permanently repealed the alternative minimum tax; and, unfortunately, the Democratic President vetoed that bill. So I think there is enough blame to go around if that's why you're coming to the floor to assign blame. But the AMT, as has been pointed out, was originally created by the then-majority to hit about 150-plus wealthy families. This particular provision inserted not an extended, expiring provision, but a brand-new provision, but this brand new provision helps 150 legislators. Of this rifle shot, former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee Rostenkowski would most certainly be proud. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I look at the time, it is about 13 years ago exactly at this moment that I was standing at the altar saying, ``I do'' to the love of my life. So I must begin by wishing a happy 13th anniversary to the most beautiful woman in the world, with all respect to those ladies that are here present. I guess every marriage has obviously some high points and some disappointments. And the other reason for me coming to floor is to actually speak about the disappointment that I have with the White House, particularly with its veto of H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act, often referred to as WRDA. This veto, if I must say so, was ill advised and I expect will be overridden by this House tomorrow and the Senate in the coming days. I acknowledge that the President, during the veto message, mentioned that when the WRDA bill left the House, it was about $15 billion. The Senate's version was at 14 billion. And the final version of the water resources bill was somewhere around 23 billion. Yet certainly the White House understands that the bill that left the House had different priorities emphasized, different projects were being considered by the Senate and as such when the conference was convened, those bills had to be combined. The President, in his veto message, said, in essence, I fully support funding for water resources projects. Respectfully, I must point out that the President's budget each year woefully underfunds the Army Corps of Engineers budget in my view, the operations and maintenance budget. And the White House went on with its veto message to say, My administration has repeatedly urged Congress to authorize only those projects that provide a high return on investment. Well, I share the White House's belief that taxpayers deserve a dollar's worth of services for every dollar they remit in taxes. But just looking at water resources projects in terms of dollars and cents is what caused us to only have category 3 levees in New Orleans. We have seen how short-sighted that decision was. In fact, I would suggest that over the last 25 years, every dollar that the Corps has invested in flood control has been returned six-fold in potential damages that had been averted. A WRDA bill has not been passed by Congress in 7 years. Communities around this Nation are now in desperate need for projects such as levees and protective coastal wetlands. Moreover, in the past 7 years, our water-borne transportation infrastructure has continued to crumble. There are 192 active locks on navigable waterways in this Nation. The average age is 60. The President, by his veto, is choosing to ignore these needs, possibly harming the lives and certainly the livelihoods of millions of people in this country. One of the most important projects for the Missouri-Illinois delegations is the much-needed modernization of the five locks on the upper Mississippi River and two on the Illinois waterway. This is something that we helped author back in the 108th Congress. And certainly I acknowledge my good friends and supporters of this, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), the dynamic duo from Illinois, Mr. Costello and Mr. Shimkus on our side of the aisle, and also Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Baker have been instrumental in bringing this project to fruition. Look, these locks are vital to farmers, manufacturers and many other industries in Missouri, Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. These locks on the Mississippi and Illinois rivers facilitate the movement of 100 million tons of cargo every year. While almost 50 percent, half of this is cargo, is agricultural, the river also transports asphalt for road construction, coal for electricity. In fact, did you know that every gallon of jet fuel that is used at O'Hare and Midway Airports in Chicago is transported on our navigable waterways? The shipments of these products via the river saves the American public between $800 million and $2 billion over other modes of transportation. Certainly I would suggest that while not every farmer in the region uses the river to ship crops, all growers are impacted by it. Every day the price of grain a farmer receives at his home market is based on the price of grain that moves on the Mississippi River to export markets. The lower the cost of transportation here within our own borders, the lower the cost of U.S. grain is on the world market, the more grain the United States is able to sell to our foreign trading partners. As some in this Chamber know, I have a personal experience shipping on the river. I grew up in the shadow of the levees along the Mississippi in southeast Missouri. Lock modernization, I can assure you, will ensure that farmers in Missouri, Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin and elsewhere continue to have the same benefit that my family had growing up on our family's farm, the ability to ship crops to international markets via the most cost-effective method. Now, many of these locks, unfortunately, are being held together with bailing wire and duct tape. Our senior Senator, Senator Bond, is fond of saying that these locks belong on the National Register of Historic Places. He is actually mistaken. They are already on the National Registry of Historic Places. I urge this House to override the President's veto.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. With all respect, Madam Speaker, I don't need to be lectured to by a Member who did not even support the original Children's Health Insurance Program. The fact is that we reached compromise 10 years ago. And I recognize that the chairman of the Health Subcommittee can ram through a bill when you've got the votes, as the original bill was done, without any input from anybody else, that it's my way or the highway. And I recognize that when you have the votes, that's one way you can try to enact legislation. So my question still stands, after this veto is sustained, Do you want the politics or do you want the policy? I hope the latter. Because I guarantee you we can have a meeting of the minds. Mr. Camp and I, Mr. Boustany, in fact, introduced the Kids First Act that would reauthorize this program. It's similar to the alternative in the Senate that would increase State allotments by $14 billion over the next 5 years, that would allow 1.3 million new low-income children to be covered, that reimburses States at their Medicaid matching rate, fully offsets the bill without raising taxes, bolsters current provisions to provide premium assistance to kids who have access to private coverage so that we can better coordinate public and private programs to prevent the crowding-out effect. So once this political effort is done, I hope we can have a meeting of the minds.