Kenny Hulshof

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a distinguished group of Americans. On November 14, 2003 the Exercise Tiger Foundation held its National Adopt a Serviceman Program in Jefferson City. It is essential that we take a moment to remember not only the sacrifice of veterans of Exercise Tiger, but also those men and women currently serving our Nation in the military. Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to take a moment to remind all of us of the story of Exercise Tiger during the Second World War. Unfortunately, for many people, the words ``Exercise Tiger'' hold no special significance. Few know of the sacrifice made by so many in late August of 1944. At its outset, Exercise Tiger was one of several training exercises conducted to prepare American and British troops for the upcoming invasion of Normandy. Concentrated on a beach near Dover, England, these operations were meant to prepare the raw recruits for combat, not provide them their first taste of war. In the calm, early morning hours of April 28, 1944, tragedy struck. As eight Navy landing ships, or LST's, and their lone escort approached their landing area, nine German U-Boats patrolling the English Channel attacked. LST-507 was the first ship to be torpedoed; it quickly caught fire and survivors abandoned ship. Moments later, LST-531 was hit and sank within 6 minutes. The American ships quickly regrouped and returned fire, with LST-289 suffering significant casualties. In a moment, the green American recruits became battle-tested veterans. Out of a 4,000 man force, nearly one-quarter were either missing or dead. While the heroism of the American troops under heavy enemy fire deserves high praise, the men who participated in Exercise Tiger had a job to do--practice landing operations resumed the very next day, April 29, 1944. In most cases, the casualty information and details surrounding the mission would have been made public within days or even hours of the attack. With Exercise Tiger, however, this information was not released until after the D-Day invasion. This was necessary to keep the German military from learning about the impending invasion of mainland Europe. As the world now knows, the allied invasion of Europe on D-Day was a success. Unfortunately, those who helped make D-Day possible have not been properly recognized for their sacrifice. This too, must change. We must take it upon ourselves to ensure that the virtues those who served in Exercise Tiger--courage, humility and steadfast devotion to completing the task at hand--remembered and documented for future generations. As such, it is only appropriate that the Exercise Tiger Foundation has nominated eight members from various branches of the active and reserve forces as part of the National Adopt a Serviceman Program. This year's honorees are Staff Sergeant Patrick Reed, 1107th AVCAD, Missouri Army Reserve National Guard, Command Sergeant Gary L. Murphy, 139th Security Forces Squadron, U.S. Air National Guard, Master Sergeant Robert A. Jackson, 442nd Fighter Wing, U.S. Air Force Reserve, Staff Sergeant Billy Jack Roberts, 509th Bomb Wing, U.S. Air Force, Petty Officer 2nd Class Yancy Woodard, Staff Sergeant Matthew Beadle, U.S. Marine Corps, Sergeant Dennis Payne, 110th Engineers, Missouri Army Reserve National Guard, and Boatswain's Mate 2nd Class Kristian Sova, U.S. Coast Guard. Without a doubt, their exemplary service to our Nation honors the example of those who came before them. These individuals certainly deserve our recognition and support as they continue to defend our freedom both here and abroad. We stand united behind them, and united behind the freedom our Nation guarantees. May God continue to bless this Nation as well as all of those men and women who have served in uniform.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, it has often been said that freedom is never free. Deposing the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein has indeed proved costly to America in terms of both lives and treasure. While we have joined with the Iraqi people to win their freedom, much remains to be done in order to secure that freedom for generations to come. This debate is of similar gravity as that of last October, when this Congress authorized the use of force to enforce all relevant U.N. resolutions on Iraq. Today, we debate not the future war, but the future peace of a region. After much deliberation, I find that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana achieves the best balance between our obligations in Iraq as well as the obligation of the Iraqi people to play a prominent role in securing their own future. The parallel system of grants and loans would first build the foundations for a democratically elected government in Iraq. This new government would then find a willing partner in the United States to help finance needed investments in infrastructure and security. Democracy is not a spectator sport, and the Iraqi people must take the leading role to secure the peace for the long-term. While I am well aware that this amendment might be ruled out of order on parliamentary grounds, it represents the best policy for our nation and for the Iraqi people. That said, failure in Iraq is simply not an option. It is with serious reservations that I will support this supplemental without the inclusion of the Pence amendment. As such, I urge the Administration to re-examine loans as a means of financing the reconstruction of Iraq.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I am going to reclaim my time. I appreciate the gentleman going on a rhetorical journey about the appropriations bills. I did not mean to put the gentleman on the spot, but I again believe that a compromise is, in fact, achievable. Just a couple of points, Mr. Speaker, regarding the gentleman and his insinuation that Congress has been derelict in dealing with or in providing relief for working families. I go back to the year 2001 in the previous Congress. That is the first time Congress actually made the child tax credit refundable, which we now are talking about expanding. Also I would point out that the jobs and growth package previously enacted and now signed into law but which originated in our Committee on Ways and Means and then considered by this House accelerated those income tax rate reductions that are now law. The reason that there is more take-home pay in the next month's monthly paycheck is because of those accelerated income tax rate reductions, as well as doubling the standard deduction for married couples to try to at least eliminate to some degree the marriage penalty. And so I would take issue with the gentleman's comment that Congress has not been doing its work as far as working families with those prior examples and again would urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HULSHOF. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What I would say to my colleague and friend from Connecticut is that we have had a number of recorded votes on this issue. And the gentlewoman is correct that on the first occasion that the motion was considered it did in fact pass by a narrow margin. We have had five subsequent votes, if memory serves, and on each of those occasions the motion did not pass.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The hour is indeed late, Mr. Speaker. The majority of Americans, save a few insomniacs, are, in the words of my 3-year-old daughter, fast asleep. In fact, I see the yawns being stifled by staff members that have put in a good, long legislative day here today. I do not expect to use the entirety of the time allotted to me. I want to applaud the gentleman from New York. I certainly share the gentleman's stated desire, at least the stated desire tonight to reduce the tax burden on working families in America. I wish the gentleman would have had his vote in favor of tax relief earlier, but that is another debate for another day. When we think about the average worker's day in a couple of hours and the amount of taxes that that individual will have to have put forth, let me just give you a quick example. When the electric alarm clock goes off in a couple of hours, whether you hit the snooze button or turn it off, you are paying an electricity tax. When you get up and brush your teeth and take a shower, you are paying a water tax. If you drive to the convenience store to get your cup of coffee, you are paying a sales tax. When you drive on to work, you are paying a gasoline tax. If you use the phone during the day, you pay a phone tax. Obviously the day's work, you are paying an income tax, as well as a payroll tax. When you get home, and thankfully about two-thirds of Americans actually own their own home, you of course pay a property tax. When you kiss your spouse good night, you think that is free. Not so says Uncle Sam and the Internal Revenue Code because there is a marriage tax, and then if you build and you save and you invest and you risk and you sweat and you survive and you have a family business, yes, there is Uncle Sam at death's door taking up to half of your family business in something called the death tax. So I share the gentleman's idea that the average working family in America is overtaxed, and there are a number of ways that we have tried in this Congress, in fact over the past couple of Congresses, to ease that burden, that heavy tax burden on America's working families. The reason that I stand in opposition to the motion being offered by the other side proffered by the gentleman from New York is that the motion is deficient in several respects. First of all, the motion that is offered by the gentleman from New York allows the child credit to drop from $1,000 to $700 shortly at the end of 2004. As a result, many of those low- and middle-income families that the gentleman talked about will receive a smaller child tax credit right after, as it turns out, next November's elections. The House-passed bill that is currently awaiting a conference, and I would say to the gentleman I do not share the pessimism expressed here on the House floor because if he reads some of the publications, it appears that House and Senate conferees are beginning to work and move this package forward, but at least the House-passed version ensures that the child credit remains at the $1,000 level throughout the decade; and I would say simply to all Members of the House, if it is good policy now, if it is good policy through 2004, surely it is good policy beyond 2004. That is one reason that I strongly oppose this motion to instruct. Secondly, the motion being offered by the gentleman from New York does not eliminate the marriage penalty in the child credit until the year 2010, and even then under this motion only does that for one measly, meager year. Under the Democratic motion, millions of children will be denied the child credit simply because their parents are married, and we are talking about those on the socioeconomic scale that we have been encouraging the institution of marriage. So on the one hand we are encouraging them to enter into a state of matrimony. At the same time we say, but there is a penalty, again a marriage penalty for those of you single parents coming together who have children because we are denying you at least under the Democratic alternative this child credit through the marriage penalty. So for those two reasons and others that perhaps we will have a chance to discuss later I think the gentleman's motion should fail. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the motion to instruct, and I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What I would say to the gentlewoman from California who just spoke is a couple of points. The child credit actually, we phase out for upper- income individuals. In fact, families that have children that are above a certain income threshold do not qualify. Their children do not qualify. I think what is interesting in all of this debate is night after night when we debate this motion to instruct and we talk about trying to provide for the children that we are only talking about some of the children; that is, children of the successful families do not qualify. But that is neither here nor there, but I wanted to set the record straight that as she talks about tax cuts for the wealthy regarding a child credit, those successful families do not qualify for the child credit. What I would say to the gentlewoman, too, who just spoke regarding the Ramirez family and the teacher and mechanic with children, under existing law, and again this is sort of back of the envelope calculations, but under existing law, as I understand it, the Ramirez family already is entitled to the refundable child credit; in fact, a family with children whose annual income from salaries and wages is roughly $25,000. Their Federal income tax liability before the child credit is roughly $885. Their tax liability after the child credit is zero. In fact, with the refundable child credit, they get an additional $565, and part of that of course is refundable. The total check from the United States Treasury to the family like the Ramirez family is roughly, again back of the envelope calculation, $2,282. That is an income supplement that goes to good hard-working families like the Ramirez family as described by the previous speaker. So I think that they are already benefiting from actions of Congress, specifically the refundable child credit from 2001. Again, I would just sum up, Mr. Speaker, and say that the Democratic motion to instruct actually allows the child credit to drop from $1,000 to $700 after the 2004 election. As a result, millions of low- and middle-income families will get under their motion a smaller child credit. The House-passed bill H.R. 1308 ensures that the child credit remains at this $1,000 level that we have decided to be appropriate throughout the decade. Again good policy now, good policy next year, good policy 5 or 7 or 8 years down the road. The Democratic motion to instruct should fail because it does not eliminate the marriage penalty in the child credit until the year 2010 and even then just for a year. So again under their motion millions of children will be denied the child credit because their parents are married. What signal are we sending across the country that we say that again if they do the right thing, work hard, play by the rules, and then choose to raise their family within the institution of marriage but it is going to cost them on their bottom line under the Democratic motion that they do not get this refundability if, in fact, they choose marriage as the course for their family? The House-passed bill benefits middle-income families, married families, by eliminating the child credit immediately for married couples. I did want to point out because I know it has been referenced on a couple of occasions the House-passed bill does not deny child credit to military families. Military families, including those that are deployed abroad, are already receiving a refundable credit and will continue to receive a refundable credit under the House-passed bill. So I think, again, H.R. 1308, which has passed this House, is far superior than the Senate version. So I would urge a no vote on the motion to instruct. In Washington, DC, Mr. Speaker, pessimists are seldom prophets. I happen to believe in the best nature of this institution as well as our counterparts on the other side of the Capitol. I happen to believe that we will be able to find a good workable compromise for all children of working families. So I would urge a no vote on the motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HULSHOF. I would say to the gentleman that at least in some of the publications, at least Congress Daily of yesterday that talked about that there now is some dialogue between Senate conferees and House conferees, again I believe optimistically, and the President of the United States has said this is a priority for him, I believe we are going to have a compromise reached. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. HULSHOF. I would say to the gentleman that the leadership on our side, and he referenced a number of leaders, the very fact that we considered on this House floor an expansion of the child credit beyond what is included in the Democratic motion to instruct, the All-American Tax Relief Act of 2003, H.R. 1308, shows the commitment of leadership to move this issue forward.

Mr. HULSHOF. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before the gentleman leaves the floor, let me pose a hypothetical to him because I certainly respect the fact as a newly minted Member of Congress and having to agonize over some of these votes and I think the gentleman was sincere talking about weighing these various tax cut options. The hypothetical I would put to him, if there were in a conference between House and Senate a compromise that would actually increase the child credit to $1,000 per eligible child and maybe make that extension for a 5-year period of time rather than a 10-year period of time and if this hypothetical conference also would eliminate the marriage penalty in the child credit, would the gentleman from North Carolina be so inclined to support such a compromise?

Mr. HULSHOF. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, actually what the majority leader said was, when asked will the House take up the Senate bill, the majority leader then made the statement the gentlewoman suggests, and that was that, no, the House would not take up the identical language in the Senate bill. In fact, the House passed H.R. 1308, the All American Tax Relief Act of 2003, which was an amendment to the Senate version. But I want to say just a couple of things regarding the comments that have been made. The House passed a budget, the Senate did as well. The two Chambers reconciled that budget number, and it was the Senate, of course, that drew the line in the sand, as it were, and said no more tax relief over $350 billion. And so what I think needs to be pointed out is that I think as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, as we began to mark up the bill and move it through the committee process and bring it to the House floor, I cannot recall ever the discussion being that we needed to have this refundable child credit for low- income wage earners. It was only as an amendment on the Senate side, and then ultimately, of course, again with that $350 billion figure, they were unable to get it done. So, then, we come back and go through the legislative process again, and again I remain optimistic that the two bodies can get together. What I want to say, though, specifically regarding this continued mantra about the amount of taxes that all Americans pay, as I stated at the outset, I continue to believe that all Americans are overburdened with State and Federal and local taxes. But what I would say to the gentlewoman from Connecticut or the gentleman or anyone else that wishes to make this point, we do not have the authority to bring down the property tax rates in the State of Connecticut. There are some States that do not have an income tax and, in fact, draw revenue based entirely upon a sales tax. That is not within the purview of Congress. That is left up to the discretion of States legislatures. We had a recent referendum in my hometown of Columbia, Missouri, whether we should raise the property tax levy for the school districts. We decided as a community that, yes, we should. That is not something, then, that we should collect taxes from someone from the Hamptons, that happens to be in the First Congressional District of the gentleman from New York, to suddenly help redistribute that Federal income tax money to pay for this school referendum that we had at the local level. I will say this regarding the property tax. Back in 1975, the earned income tax credit was enacted. At that time in 1975 it was a temporary program to return a portion of the Social Security taxes that were paid by lower-income taxpayers. It was made permanent in 1978. In 1990, the program had become a major component of Federal efforts to reduce poverty. Now it is the largest anti-poverty entitlement program. My friends on the other side talk about this child credit provision, this $3.5 billion over 10-year provision. Actually it is a 2-year provision, and yet every year, every single tax year, income taxpayers collectively put $30 billion of income tax monies into the earned income tax credit for those wage earners on the low-income wage scale, $30 billion for some 19 million Americans, at least tax filers, every year through the earned income tax credit. Now, yes, we all work hard, we play by the rules, and those individuals that contribute to Social Security, it did a wonderful thing that we have a national retirement system that if you work 40 quarters that entitles you then to Social Security benefits. And that, too, payroll taxes are these dedicated taxes that finance Social Security and Medicare. I think it should be pointed out that Social Security offers a progressive benefit structure that is by design more beneficial to low-income workers. And lastly, in many instances, the combination of the earned income credit and the current law child credit more than completely offsets this payroll tax liability. And so I think that this Congress has spoken on many occasions as far as the expansion of the earned income tax credit. I think the child credit, again, is something that we have discussed. I think that the motion to instruct is deficient and would urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, what I would say to the previous speaker is the transcript is in fact true. What was not included was that in the transcript at the conclusion, again on page 18, line 24, ``And, without objection, it is considered as read.'' At that point, the chairman struck the gavel.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, hopefully to further clarify some of the questions that have been asked, and I see the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has been provided a transcript from this morning's Committee on Ways and Means markup, what I would like to do is read the relevant portions, I think, which then necessitated the calling of the Sergeant at Arms. This would be at page 15, line 331, the chairman stated, ``If the gentleman will suspend. If the gentleman from California would understand he is reading the table of contents, which is at the beginning of the bill.'' The remaining minority Member said, ``Oh, that.'' Line 335, ``Chairman Thomas. He will then move to the body of the bill. That is how these things work.'' To which the sole Member of the minority party that was left in the room said this at line 337, ``Its eloquence overwhelms me, Mr. Chairman, just like your intellect does. It is--oh, you think you are big enough to make me, you little wimp? Come on. Come over here and make me. I dare you.'' The transcript indicates in brackets ``laughter,'' to which the minority member then said, ``You little fruitcake. You little fruitcake. I said you are a fruitcake.'' Now, what the transcript does not indicate, and I would have to stay with the transcript, and just as many of us who have had previous experience in criminal courtrooms or civil courtrooms, the transcript is, of course, the cold recitation of words that are spoken. If Members will permit me to characterize just a bit, I was sitting next to the gentleman from Colorado, and I would tell the Speaker that the words specifically regarding, ``Are you big enough to make me, you little wimp? Come on. Come over here and make me. I dare you,'' I happened to turn around in my chair because I am on the lower dais and looked up, and it was the sole Democratic member who was remaining who was directing those words directly at the gentleman from Colorado. If Members would permit me to characterize a little bit more, even though laughter erupted, as someone who was witnessing this event, Mr. Speaker, the words were uttered in a very serious tone, dare I say in a threatening tone. I do not think I am mischaracterizing the import of these words. This, of course, was done during the reading of the bill. Ultimately, the chairman was able to get a unanimous consent request. That is later reflected. Then we were able to move and consider the bill, but this was done before the Capitol Police were called; and were I the chairman in the same situation, I, too, would have contacted the Sergeant at Arms to return decorum to our committee room.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the discussion and the debate and the rhetoric, and I have been a bit disappointed by some of the arguments that have been made; not surprised by the arguments, but nonetheless disappointed. There have been some of my colleagues on the other side who have talked about hypotheticals. Let me allow my colleagues a little glimpse into a very personal story. On November 22 of last year, my father collapsed and died at our family's home in Southeast Missouri. He was 68. On his first trip to Washington, D.C., he sat right up there in the gallery to watch his son take the first oath of office. He died without an estate plan. In fact, I wish my colleagues could have met my dad, because if they had shaken his hand, they would have immediately noticed the callouses from 4 decades of working our family's farm down in the district of the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson). One of the necessities, of course, of having that painful experience is that my mom and I, as the surviving members of the family, had to conduct an inventory. And I do not mind telling my colleagues, a 493- acre farm, a number of irrigation systems, farm equipment, grain trucks, the modest home where I grew up, modest savings and, thankfully, because of Congress's actions a number of years ago, my mom was not required to pay the tax. Yet, she has vowed to put together an estate plan in order to pass on the legacy that my father built. So she has been forced to spend thousands of dollars to accountants, to lawyers to create these legal contortions that are required by the very existence of the estate tax. Can anybody give me a compelling reason why she should have to spend her limited resources in order to preserve my father's legacy? Can anyone? As long as the estate tax laws remain on the books, surviving family members across this country will have to shell out hard-earned dollars to ensure that the long reach of the death tax does not force them to sell off assets in the family business. The gentleman from North Dakota is my friend. I applaud his intent. One of the charts that he mentioned, at the bottom, it says only 400 farms would actually be subject to the estate tax. I think that is what it says on the bottom of it, and I will let my colleagues look at the exhibit; and yet what the chart does not say is that every farm or every family business has to file an estate tax form and a return, perhaps a simple exercise, but in every instance where a family business has been accumulating assets, a return has to be filed, which means again hours of meetings with accountants and lawyers and, again, a cost of compliance. So it is not just the number of estates that would be subject to the tax. It is this huge cost that as long as the estate tax, the inheritance tax remains on the laws of our books there will be this cost of compliance to all family businesses across the country. Simply, the death of a family member should never be a taxable event.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 287 I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, Moberly, Missouri celebrated its annual Omar Bradley Day. This day is an opportunity for area residents to remember a great hero and reflect on General Bradley's role in preserving the freedoms we hold dear. As such, I wish to enter the following article, ``Who Is Omar Bradley and Why Should I Care?'' into the Congressional Record. Written by Moberly resident Sam Richardson, this item appeared in the Sunday, May 11, 2003 edition of the Moberly Monitor-Index. I believe the points it makes are a fitting tribute to General Bradley. Who Is Omar Bradley and Why Should I Care? Here's a good topic to toss around over your dinner tonight: ``Who is Omar Bradley and why should I care?'' It's a fair question around these parts, what with the annual General Omar Nelson Bradley Luncheon, Lecture and Symposium coming up Monday, May 12, at the Municipal Auditorium in Moberly. ``What did old Omar Bradley do to cause a whole lot of people to come to his hometown 22 years after he died?'' Another more than fair question. The stock answer is that he is Missouri's most famous military figure, a member of the Missouri Hall of Fame, a guy with a 34-cent stamp with his picture on it, the fellow captured in bronze in the soaring statue in Rothwell Park, the ``Bradley'' who is the namesake for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle so prominent in last month's Operation Iraqi Freedom. Moberly public schools, St. Pius X School, Moberly Area Community College, the University of Missouri, Truman State University and other educational institutions in Bradley's home state may teach young Missourians why Omar Bradley is important to them. And, indeed, he is important to them. Of course, young and old alike should know Bradley went from Moberly High School to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and eventually commanded the largest American fighting force ever assembled, was our nation's last five-star general officer and first Chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff. At the 2002 Bradley Symposium, LTC Jay Carafano, then editor at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington, D.C., told the audience one of the key reasons Bradley was not high on the public awareness screen was because of his low profile on the silver screen. Hollywood's big films about World War II didn't have much of a role for Bradley. LTC Carafano noted Bradley was on screen in ``Patton,'' ``The Longest Day'' and ``Saving Private Ryan'' only briefly, hardly a leading character. At this year's Bradley Symposium, two of the Truman Presidential Library's leading historians will make the point that Bradley was a pillar of leadership in his time. Tom Heuertz, associate education coordinator, and Ray Geselbracht, education and academic outreach coordinator, at the great Independence museum will try to explain how highly Bradley was esteemed by President Harry S. Truman. ``Truman saw him as one of the world's greatest generals ever, in the same class with Hannibal and Napoleon,'' Heuertz said yesterday. Because of the positions he held, Bradley clearly was a favorite of at least three Presidents: Franklin Roosevelt, Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. On a recent edition of ``The Newshour with Jim Lehrer,'' Lucian Truscott IV, a noted military history author, reflecting on American generals' leadership in Operation Iraqi Freedom, suggested the U.S. Central Command's Gen. Tommy Franks and others were nowhere near the class of ``great generals like Patton, Bradley and Eisenhower.'' Monday, Colonel Jon H. Moilanen, dean of students and administration at the U.S. Army's Command and General Staff College in Leavenworth, Kansas, will describe how Bradley's military expertise still molds the careers of young officers who serve throughout the world today. This is pretty heady stuff for a chap from our town. In a story about Bradley Day in The Washington Times recently, Moberly was referred to as ``quaint'' and ``picturesque.'' For his part, Bradley was, indeed, quiet, modest and unselfish, along with very smart, a natural leader and an exceptional athlete. The kind of man you'd expect to come from a quaint and picturesque town like ours. In the 1915 West Point class yearbook, it is reported Bradley was a sergeant, first sergeant and lieutenant; he was a sharpshooter; he was a member of the football team and track squad; and, perhaps most importantly to him at the time, he was the star of the Army baseball team all four years he was there. The yearbook says, ``His greatest passion is baseball, football and F Company. In baseball, many an opposing player has trifled once with Brad's throwing arm, but never twice. And a batting average of .383 is never to be sneezed at.'' ``His most prominent characteristic is 'getting there,' and if he keeps up the clip he's started, some of us will some day be bragging to our grandchildren that, 'sure, General Bradley was a classmate of mine,''' the yearbook says of our favorite son. And, in the style of the day, the yearbook assigned each cadet a motto. Bradley's: ``True merit is like a river, the deeper it is, the less noise it makes,'' attributed to Anonymous. How true that turned out. Although his classmate Eisenhower became Supreme Allied Commander in World War II, and then President, Bradley was the first in his class to become a brigadier general. One reporter wrote in May 1944, ``Endowed with the mind of a mathematician and the body of an athlete, General Bradley is essentially American in ancestry, training and experience; he is slow spoken but sharp witted; he is polite and at times even diffident, but immensely certain of his own skill--the type of soldier who for 168 years has sustained the republic.'' And finally, this former captain of the Moberly High School baseball team, a boy worthy of his own shotgun at age 13, a young man who graduated 44th in a class of 164 at West Point, would tell a reporter about dinner at his humble home in Randolph County: ``We'd sit down at the supper table, my mother, my dad and I, and we'd talk things over. That's where I learned a lot about love of country and right from wrong.'' From a dinner table in Randolph County to the greatness of the world, that was the man who will be remembered Monday at the 2003 General Omar Bradley Luncheon, Lecture and Symposium.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. I object.

Mr. HULSHOF. I object.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, in the real world if a family's house's foundation begins to crumble and the family does not have savings enough to make the necessary repairs, they would take out a home equity loan, a short-term loan, in order to rebuild the foundation of their family's home. It seems that the majority opinion on the minority side is to repudiate the economic policies of President John F. Kennedy, that a rising tide lifts all boats. The substitute that was offered last night says that in order to stimulate the economy we should spend more money. Were that the case, America would never experience a recession because Congress always spends more money. The other side has said that the judgment of individual Members of Congress seems to be superior to the judgement of America's families as they sit around the kitchen table trying to pay the bills. We are trying to embrace consumer confidence and investor confidence. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 2. Our economy's foundation is crumbling and it is time that we repair it.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) who spoke last has regaled us on a number of occasions with some interesting and I would say provocative speeches over the last couple of years about the use and abuse of tax shelters. He has proclaimed himself, Mr. Speaker, the defender of the individual taxpayer against abusive corporate tax shelters. He has often cited Enron when that issue was before Congress. He has railed against the expansion of the business meal deduction, saying taxpayers would subsidize $400 bottles of wine, a thinly-veiled swipe at the former Speaker. In the immediate aftermath of September 11, in the committee he went as far as to say that Republicans on the committee were looking for tax cuts for Osama bin Laden. Now he attempts to wrap himself into the fireman's coat and shield himself with the policeman's shield. It is just not so. Section 418 of the Social Security Protection Act closes a loophole. The General Accounting Office says this about that loophole: ``4,819 individuals from Texas and Georgia have performed work in Social Security-covered positions for short periods, and in fact even for a day, in order to offset'' or get away from this government pension offset in this exemption. This is a loophole, a loophole that is being exploited. In 2002, one- fourth of all the public education retirees in the State of Texas took advantage of this loophole. Let me give an example of an egregious type of way that this is being exploited, and unfortunately, much to the chagrin of other hardworking Social Security payees across the country. School officials reported individuals were taking, or one individual traveled 800 miles one way, 800 miles, a two-day trip, to be employed for a single day, traveling back 800 miles back to that person's home in order to get away from this loophole. As my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), noted, a lot of these school districts are seeing the money flow in because they are charging these retirees, these teachers, a processing fee for their school districts. Ultimately, what it means is that these workers are seeing their annual pensions increased by the tune of about $5,000 a year to which they are not entitled. So we can talk about the government pension offset all we would like, or the windfall elimination provision. Yet what we are trying to do is root out waste, fraud and abuse. The General Accounting Office has told us clearly and unequivocally this is a loophole that is being exploited, and it is time that this Congress acted to close this loophole, because other retirees are the ones that are losing the advantage of their social security.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, again I would say to the gentleman who just spoke, who has self-proclaimed his time here as far as trying to shut down these corporate abusive shelters, in existing law that the Social Security Protection Act attempts to protect is a loophole that is being exploited, a single-day exception where workers attempt to get around this law. Perhaps if the gentleman's constituents had set up post office boxes in Bermuda, perhaps we would see some righteous indignation in favor of this legislation instead of opposed.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), that tearful constituent of his is probably not scheming to game the system. I would say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), I think it is a bit disingenuous to invoke our troops and our firefighters. I would say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) who offers the amendment, the amendment would strip section 418 out of the underlying bill. And I would again say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) who just spoke, would the following hypothetical be considered a gimmick, trick or fraud: A university professor who works his entire life as a university professor, works a single day as a janitor making $6 an hour, an 8-hour day, $48, and out of that paycheck, there is a $3 FICA withholding, is it a gimmick, a trick or a fraud for that $3 FICA withholding to then translate into roughly $100,000; $5,000 a year for 20 years of retirement? Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that is not a gimmick, trick, or fraud. It is not even a hypothetical. It is a real-life example of something that has occurred that needs to be changed. A real janitor would not see that $100,000.