Kenny Hulshof

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Before yielding to my friend from Texas, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to a previous speaker, the gentlelady from New Hampshire, who said that she would have voted against the original bill had she known or had she believed that, in fact, a family of four making $80,000 would qualify their children. Well, in fact, I would point the gentlelady to section 114, subparagraph A of the bill that allows income disregards. And I would say to the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who pointed out that, yes, it was the administration that granted the waiver, there are some on this side who would suggest the administration has approved unwise waivers in the past. But even this administration has indicated to a particular Governor that before we allow this waiver to occur, in the instance of New Jersey, so many additional enrollees would have to meet the intent of the SCHIP program, to which the Governor said, ``I don't have to abide by that.'' And I find that a bit difficult to swallow as we then discuss whether this should be the law of the land. I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to an individual who is now the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee, who also helped create the Children's Health Insurance Program back in 1997, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).

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

Mr. HULSHOF. I continue to reserve my time, Madam Speaker.

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Never in my wildest dreams would I imagine that on a day in August of 1997 that a Democratic President would sign a bill presented by a Republican Congress, and that that would be a high-water mark as far as consensus between a divided government, 10 years ago, the high-water mark of a divided government coming together to create a solution. I was here to help create the bill. In that instance, a Republican Congress worked with, negotiated with, compromised with the President of the other party to create a solution to the problem of children who had no health insurance. Now, I would say, Madam Speaker, that the 2007 version of the Children's Health Insurance Program is almost unrecognizable from the original bill, and certainly beyond the original intent of that bill. For instance, New Jersey currently has a planned amendment that would use income disregards which would allow it to raise its SCHIP eligibility levels to 350 percent of poverty. That's about $71,000 for a family of four. And don't just take my word for it. Look at section 114, subparagraph A under the bill. And that would continue under this bill. Many adults without children would be eligible under this bill. Don't take my word for it. Read subparagraph A of section 112 of the bill. You know, the bill allows States to move them to Medicaid, but allows it to pay. The Federal Government should not be, in my humble opinion, in the business of paying for States who want to cover childless adults that are grandfathered in this bill. And on behalf of my constituents in Missouri, should I ask them to reach in their pockets then and to pay for health care for a family of four in New Jersey making $70,000 or a family of four in New York making $80,000? So it comes down to this. In fact, there are still 79,000 kids in Missouri, Madam Speaker, that are still at or below 200 percent of poverty. Those are the kids we need to reach out to to provide health insurance. So the question at the end of this vote is this, to my friends on the other side, Do you want the politics or do you want the policy?

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

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer this motion to recommit to the underlying bill, the Tax Collection Responsibility Act. The motion to recommit would actually incorporate H.R. 2380, which is a bill for which I am the original sponsor. It is a bipartisan bill, and I would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, especially those who have cosponsored the bill, would see fit to support this motion to recommit. Since I have these few moments, and I see the distinguished chairman of the committee who may be responding, let me anticipate some points or questions perhaps and try to respond to them. We may hear the question: Why are we doing the death tax repeal now? Well, three times in the last session of Congress did we have the opportunity to debate this issue and vote on it. Again, this House in a bipartisan fashion voted to completely, permanently repeal the death tax. I am not certain under the new majority that we will have that opportunity or not. There is a policy rationale for considering this measure now. One is the certainty. As the Speaker knows, right now there is a $2 million exemption, a 45 percent rate, a very punitive rate. That exemption in 2010 goes up to a complete repeal, and there is lack of certainty, especially those family businesses that are looking to plan on how to dispose of those assets. So I think now is an appropriate time. We may hear from my good friend, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, is this bill paid for. And I would suggest first of all that there is no budgetary impact in fiscal year 2009. We are looking beyond January 1, 2011, before any budgetary impact. And I would quote the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee who at least has been quoted in the paper as saying he is ready to tackle some big, tough issues, like the alternative minimum tax. The permanent death tax repeal is significantly less loss of revenue to the government than repealing the AMT. He has talked about fairness and equity. I can think of nothing fairer than to get rid of this very punitive tax. We may hear from the other side, as traditionally we do, this is something that only a handful of individuals face, or that this is for millionaires only. My rejoinder to that is then why is every small business group in America, whether it be the National Federation of Independent Business, whether it be every business group that represents minority interests, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the African American Chamber of Commerce in the past, all have supported complete repeal, final repeal of this very punitive tax. Let me talk a little bit about the values of this. This is the land of opportunity, is it not? The old adage is, if you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door. The only thing guaranteed, of course, in America is the guarantee of freedom and liberty and the opportunity to achieve whatever it is you dream about. Let me tell you a very personal story of a dream of a young couple. A young, strapping man left home in 1956 with his new bride in tow. They had $1,000 to their name. That is what his father had given him to go make his way into the world. And so they settled in Mrs. Emerson's district in southeast Missouri, and they worked very hard to build a farm. Over the course of those many years, this couple had a son, an only son. That individual is the one the Chair has recognized here today. They built this family business, a family-owned farm, 500 acres, three tractors, a used combine, the farmhouse where I grew up. And so it was, of course, the unfortunate reality of life, and that is we meet our heavenly reward. My dad passed on the anniversary of John F. Kennedy's death on November 22, 5 years ago this November. Mom survived another 17 months after that. I am sitting there across the mahogany desk from our old, long-time family accountant who had an old adding machine with a tape in it, and he is plugging in a value for all of these assets that my parents had already been taxed on, whose assets were to help put food on the table. Suddenly I broke out in a cold sweat because I knew when he hit the total button, that figure was going to be above or below an arbitrary line, a line set by this body. Mr. Speaker, death of a family member should not be a taxable event, and the fact is if Congress fails to do anything with the current regime, virtually every small business in America in 2011 is going to be facing this very punitive tax. I urge an ``aye'' vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. HULSHOF. I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

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. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I was unavoidably detained and missed September 7th's rollcall vote, number 869. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague from the Show Me State for yielding, and I rise in support of the Berry-Ross-Hare- Emerson-Hulshof-Costello amendment. We have tasked the Federal Emergency Management Agency with educating the public of the flood risks to their homes and businesses. I think we agree and support their continued efforts in the education campaign so long as it is done based upon the best modeling and sound science available. But I do not support FEMA pushing homeowners into purchasing flood insurance when they don't need it. This is exactly what FEMA seems to be doing with the zone X shaded floodplain note. Zone X shaded is the area behind a certified 100-year or 500-year levee but still within the 100-year floodplain. Within these zones, FEMA attaches a note, the purpose of which I believe seems to intimidate homeowners into purchasing flood insurance through a very strongly worded suggestion. Now, if you talk to FEMA, they will tell you those notes don't require individuals to purchase flood insurance; and I guess I can say my beautiful wife, Renee, doesn't require me to buy an anniversary present, but there are some things that just seem to be understood. Of particular concern, as has been expressed, is that when you have certain lenders or others who see this warning, this stark warning, that they may in fact require homeowners when in fact the law does not. Again, I acknowledge what my colleague and friend from Cape Giradeau has said. I am for floor insurance. It should be, for instance, mandatory in special flood hazard areas. But we have areas in this country where tremendous resources have been used to create a very adequate flood protection system. Mrs. Emerson's district is one of those, systems that are constructed and maintained and certified by the Federal Government. So individuals that live behind these certified levees, whether they have been constructed by the Federal Government or constructed under the supervision of the Federal Government, they pay their due, they pay Federal taxes, and often they have participated in the levee districts themselves. I think this is a commonsense amendment, and I am proud to support it.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. We have no other speakers remaining, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3540, the Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2007. As the gentleman, my colleague on the Ways and Means Committee, indicated, this bill is a 3-month extension of the excise taxes that currently fund the Airport and Airway trust fund. Time is of the essence, as the Speaker knows, as these taxes are due to expire at the end of the month, and it is imperative that we do not cut off this source of funding that benefits our Nation's airports and the aviation community, as well as the tens of thousands of airline passengers. I see my colleague from Illinois nodding, and we shared a plane ride here moments ago. In addition, there has been a lot of discussion about a way to reformulate the way we fund the trust fund. There have been some interesting ideas bandied about by different points of view. This temporary extension allows us that additional time to consider some fundamental reforms to the tax structure that finances the Airport and Airway trust fund and to spend some more time studying the NextGen air traffic control modernization proposal before we move towards conference with the Senate to consider FAA reauthorization. As the gentleman from Michigan pointed out, this bill was reported out of our committee by voice vote. Since it extends to the end of the calendar year the existing taxes dedicated to the trust fund, there is no effect on revenues as we extend the current baseline. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I was unavoidably detained and missed one of Tuesday's rollcall votes, No. 877. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 3096, the Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2007.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. I have to admit, Mr. Speaker, that it is with conflicting emotion that I rise, as is my custom, to report on the annual Hoops for Hope basketball game, an intense athletic contest between Members of Congress and representatives of the lobbying community. Normally, I'm accompanied with a handsome trophy indicating the success of our athletic endeavors. In fact, seven times out of the last 9 years said hardware has joined me here at the table. Alas, I will admit the absence of said hardware suggests the outcome of last Monday night's game. The lobbyists defeated the Members team 45-36. Now, some point out that the enhanced lobbying disclosure rules that have been passed are to blame in that we were unable to utilize secret plays. I often point out that the universe from which the teams are drawn, the universe of lobbyists, of course numbers in the thousands, indeed the tens of thousands from which they can draw their athletic team whereas we, on the other hand, are limited by a finite number of 535. One observer of the game wryly noted that he hoped the Members of Congress team were current on their dues to the local bricklayers union in that, shall we say, our shooting percentage was not that good. The bright spot, however, as is the case every year, is that significant funds were raised for local charities. Indeed, last Monday night's event at the Smith Center, on the campus of George Washington University, raised over $60,000, bringing the cumulative total of funds for local charities to over $300,000 over the life of this very spirited but worthwhile contest. Specifically, the local charities this year included Horton's Kids and the Luke Tiahrt Foundation, as well as Saint Anthony's. Before the game, many of the children actually served by those funds were in attendance. So it was great to see the recipients of those charitable efforts being there and participating in that contest. A couple of quick thanks: As always, George Washington University was extraordinary in their hospitality in providing the gymnasium of the Smith Center. We had celebrity coaches. Coach John Thompson, III, Georgetown University's basketball coach, was the Members of Congress' coach. He didn't have a lot to work with, unfortunately, last Monday night. We are checking with the NCAA to make sure that that blemish is not going to be included in this year's Georgetown record. On the other side of the court was Coach Karl Hobbs from George Washington University. Again, we appreciate the unselfishness of both Coach Thompson and Coach Hobbs. I also want to acknowledge, I am not sure they want their names mentioned necessarily, but my colleagues, Mr. Tiahrt of Kansas, Mr. Larsen of the State of Washington, Mr. Kind of Wisconsin, Mr. Flake of Arizona, Mr. Thune from the other side of the Capitol from South Dakota, Mr. Meek of Florida, and Mr. Crowley of New York, again, gave it our best. But we fell short. But as they always say, there is next year. So, finally, with apologies to Mr. Longfellow, I would conclude by saying: Somewhere in this favored land The sun is shining bright. The band is playing somewhere And somewhere hearts are light. Somewhere men are laughing, Somewhere children play. But there is no joy in Washington, The lobbyists won the day. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. HULSHOF. I thank the gentleman for yielding. To the chairman of the full committee, I would say as difficult and partisan as this day has begun, I think we are going to end on a very bipartisan high note, and certainly thank the gentleman, the gentlelady from Texas, certainly Mr. Mica and the gentleman from Louisiana who just spoke. Congratulations to all in finally passing this WRDA bill. I would like to spend just a moment to talk about the legislation, the modernization of the five locks on the Mississippi River and the two on the Illinois River; the gentleman from Minnesota mentioned that earlier as far as the modernization of locks and dams. And I want to do this in a little different way. Last week, we considered and passed the farm bill. Perhaps I took a little bit of heat for actually supporting that bill. In part, I supported it because it provides an important safety net for our farmers. And, interestingly, the bill we are considering tonight will go a long way to ensuring that farmers don't need to rely upon subsidies to survive. How is that, you ask? Well, the ability to transport crops to export markets via the Mississippi River provides our Midwestern farmers a better price for crops than if that river was not available. Witness Hurricane Katrina as an unfortunate real world example of that specific example. A recent study conducted on behalf of a river stakeholder calculated that, if we fail to increase the size of our locks and if we were to allow river congestion to increase, farmers would lose $562 million a year. That income would need to be replaced by subsidy payments on the farms or the farms would fail. As such, the $1 billion in taxpayer dollars that this bill includes to modernize our locks is a hedge against the multiple billions of dollars of future farm subsidies and allows our farmers to continue to farm for the markets and not for a government check. This bill, as has been noticed, is long overdue. The modernization of our outdated locks is also long overdue. These locks are standing out of habit. They were built in the 1930s to accommodate steamboats. Since 1975, the Corps has spent $900 million under fix-it-as-it-fails scenarios, hoping to push major problems a little way down the river. But despite the Corps' best efforts, and I would have to say an amazing job of maintenance on a shoestring budget, the River continues to lose about 10 percent of its capacity every year due to unplanned maintenance closures. Now, as a last point, a gentle point, I would say to my friend from Oregon, who spoke earlier on the rule, he and I have discussed on several occasions the modernization of locks and dams on the Upper Mississippi, and I want to be kind to him as I say he is not as ardent of a supporter of those modernization efforts as I, and he spoke of the independent review process. I concur with him, but I would remind the gentleman that the independent review that examined the locks and dams modernization woefully underestimated the demand variable for corn and ethanol. This year alone in my district, tens of millions of additional bushels of corn will be harvested this fall and will need a viable navigable waterway. The study by the National Academy of Sciences did not adequately anticipate this increased demand. So while independent review, I agree, is important, it is not infallible. But I thank the diligent work of the committee to include this modernization. I urge every Member to support the conference report.

Mr. HULSHOF. I appreciate my friend from Minnesota. I would tell the gentleman that I grew up in the shadows of the levees of the Mississippi River, and I am the son of a Missouri farm family. We are about 8 miles from the Mississippi River as the crow flies, and the ability to have that navigable waterway means the difference between being in the black or being in the red for our family farm. So that lesson has imprinted itself upon me. And I am pleased to support the gentleman in this conference report, and I thank the gentleman for the additional courtesies.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a lot of self-congratulations, at least on one side of this Chamber. Let me congratulate some who have spoken here for what appears to this Member to be a pretty breath- taking lack of consistency. My good friend from Fremont Hills has pointed the finger to this side and said we Republicans, we don't care about children. I would remind my chairman, Mr. Speaker, that the children's health program was created by a Republican majority. The gentleman points out that this bill today is funded, as the gentleman is nodding, as that bill was funded. And I would say, Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago and 2 days on July 30, rollcall vote no. 345, on this floor, on the conference report creating the Children's Health Insurance Program, I was proud to be one of 346 ``aye'' votes. There were 85 ``no'' votes. The gentleman from California was a ``no'' vote. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee was a ``no'' vote. I find that a bit interesting. Because, today, the gentleman from California talks about this being the identical bill. This is not the identical bill. As my friend from Louisiana has said, we would love to reauthorize the program for needy children. But should we allow a family in New York making $80,000 a year free health care, free to them, but paid for by 15,000 constituents I am privileged to represent who would have their vision care or dental benefits or oxygen services cut, and the savings then given to that couple making $80,000 in New York City? One-half of the new enrollees under the majority's bill, those new enrollees would be people who already have health insurance coverage. There is, as the gentleman pointed out, a brand new, per capita tax on every health plan in America that raises $2 billion. There are rifle- shot reimbursements for hospitals in order, presumably, to sway undecided Members from Michigan and New York and Tennessee. And can anyone really defend the children's health program for childless adults, childless adults now being able to qualify for the children's health insurance program? Needy children, absolutely. Well-to-do adults, I suggest no, certainly not at the expense of cuts to senior citizens. We can do better. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, this past Friday, the great State of Missouri and the country lost a truly distinguished man, Congressman Bill Hungate, a man who previously represented the very seat that I am now privileged to currently occupy passed away. Bill Hungate was a devoted husband and father. He was a decorated soldier. He was a talented and thoughtful jurist, and a gifted author and musician. But above all else, he was a man dedicated to public service. After earning his bachelor's degree from the University of Missouri in 1943, Bill answered the country's call at the onset of World War II and enlisted in the Army. He fought bravely in the European theater over the course of the next 3 years, and received numerous decorations and awards. After the war was over, he returned home and earned his law degree from Harvard and after a short time in the private sector, he embarked upon a long and distinguished career in public service. He started first as a county prosecutor, then was a special assistant for the Missouri attorney general, and in 1964, he was elected as a Member of the 89th Congress, representing the 9th Congressional District of Missouri, and I see some of my colleagues nodding along who served with this great man. As a Member of this body, he carried himself and conducted our business in a manner that befits this historic Chamber. Many of you may acknowledge or remember that as a member of the Judiciary Committee, his tenure in Congress will always be defined by the Watergate investigation of which he played an integral part. He not only authored one of the articles of impeachment brought against President Nixon, but he also chaired the hearings that investigated and ultimately upheld President Ford's ensuing pardon. After serving the people of Missouri for 12 distinguished years, he left this Chamber with the same values and integrity that he walked in with. A few years later, he was called again to serve, this time by President Carter as a United States District Court judge, and the indelible marks he left on that institution are still felt today. And my colleague will probably remember the landmark decision of his which eventually led to the voluntary desegregation of the St. Louis county and city school districts. Judge Hungate was a man on his worse day who was better than most people on their best. He never wavered in his principles, and was a firm believer in the promise of our country. He was a servant in the truest sense of the word. I hope it is of some solace to his wife, Dorothy, his daughter Katie, his son William and his four grandchildren to know that so many people were affected by his life and are mourning his passing, and our thoughts and prayers are with them. I yield to my very good friend and the dean of the Missouri delegation, the gentleman from Lexington, Mr. Skelton.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time this morning. Mr. Speaker, in 1963, while confined in the Birmingham city jail, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote a letter to eight Alabama clergymen regarding his recent demonstrations. In that letter, Dr. King eloquently wrote: ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' Dr. King's words ring true today in this debate on H.R. 923, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act. We can no longer stand by and allow those civil rights cold cases to collect dust on our shelves. As a Nation, we owe it to the victims and their families and the country generally to provide them with long overdue justice. Before I begin, I see waiting in the wings my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis). His diligence and perseverance on this legislation has been instrumental in getting us here today. Mr. Chairman, thank you for considering this bill. It is truly an honor to stand in league with my friend from Georgia as we began this bill, actually, this trek in the last session of Congress, and certainly he is a giant in the civil rights legislation and it is a privilege for me, Mr. Lewis, to stand with you on this bill. I also want to thank Alvin Sykes, who is the president of the Emmett Till Justice Campaign, and also former Senator Jim Talent from Missouri. Had it not been for them, I don't think we would be standing here today. Mr. Sykes was inspirational in opening the Emmett Till case, for whom this legislation is named. He came to Senator Talent two years ago with the idea that ultimately spawned this legislation. I think in the short time of this calendar year, a couple of months ago we commemorated as a Nation the 150-year anniversary of the Dred Scott decision. As the gentleman from Michigan eloquently stated a moment ago, there have been chapters in our country's history that are not proud chapters, and yet we cannot turn past those chapters in the book of history, but instead must focus and right wrongs. For those of you who don't know the story of Emmett Till, Emmett was a 14-year-old African American boy from Chicago who spent his summer vacation with relatives in Mississippi. One afternoon, young Emmett spotted a Caucasian woman and allegedly whistled. For this indiscretion he was kidnapped from his house, brutally beaten, and thrown into a river with weights around his neck. And although Emmett's murderers were quickly arrested and placed on trial, the jury acquitted them and they walked out of the courtroom as free men. What makes this story even more tragic is that about a year later, one of the murderers confessed to his guilty conduct, without remorse no less, in an interview in Look magazine. As an original cosponsor of this bill, I rise today to express my strong support for this legislation as I hope it will help bring closure to countless families who continue to suffer from injustices perpetrated so long ago. As has been noted, this legislation will establish an Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Investigative Office within the FBI to investigate these pre-1970 cases in conjunction with, that is, in conjunction with, State and local authorities. H.R. 923 will also create an Unsolved Crime Section to prosecute these cold cases. In my previous life as a prosecutor, I tried some three dozen or so murder cases. And with any trial, particularly murder trials, time is of the essence. And that is especially true with cold cases that this legislation addresses. Over the past nearly 20 years, we have had 29 unsolved civil rights murder cases that have been reopened, reexamined. Thankfully, 22 convictions have resulted. We have seen justice brought to the families of Henry Dee and Charlie Moore, who were only 19 when they were murdered. What were their infractions that caused this horrific end to their lives? Henry and Charlie were believed to have knowledge about African Americans importing firearms into the country. And for this James Ford Seale and a group of fellow Klansmen kidnapped Henry and Charlie, took them into the woods, brutally beat them, and drove them into Parker's Landing in Mississippi. Henry was tied to an engine block and thrown into the Mississippi River, still alive. Charlie had to sit there and watch his friend drown, knowing that his fate would be no different. Their bodies were found several months later, Henry still tied to the engine block, Charlie to a pile of iron weights. After more than 40 years, James Ford Seale was finally held accountable for his actions, convicted just last week for his role in the murders. A fellow Klansman was given immunity in exchange for testifying about Seale's role in the murders. The Nation has witnessed the conviction of Edgar Ray Killen for his part in the murders of civil rights activists Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, and James Cheney. Ironically, tomorrow, June 21, actually marks the anniversary of those murders. We have recently seen authorities reexamine the murders of Johnnie Mae Chappell in Florida and Jimmie Lee Jackson in Alabama and hopefully, hopefully, with the enactment of H.R. 923, many more. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall once said: ``Justice too long delayed is justice denied.'' I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation so we can continue to help heal the Nation, rectify the inequities of the past, and provide justice to those who have been seemingly forgotten.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I missed last night's rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 698, the Industrial Bank Holding Company Act of 2007 and ``aye'' on H.R. 1425, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service in Odessa, Texas, as the ``Staff Sergeant Marvin ``Rex'' Young Post Office Building.''

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1495. I grew up in the shadow of levees along the Mississippi River in southeast Missouri. And while the river, at times destructive, the river has been a provider for me and my family, delivering the grain from our farm to international markets. And I will tell you, as the gentleman from Minnesota has stated, the nickels and dimes that we saved by shipping via barge were often the difference between our farm ending up in the red or ending up in the black. Those few cents have helped keep food on our table; clothes on our back; and, over the years, kept our farm even within our own family. Title VIII of the legislation, lock modernization, will insure that farmers in northeast Missouri and farmers in Iowa and Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin and elsewhere will continue to have the same benefit that my family had, the ability to ship crops to international markets via the most cost-effective method. I will tell you that a recent study by the Food and Ag Policy Research Institute, FAPRI, found that if the Mississippi River and Illinois waterways were forced to close, possibly because of a massive lock failure, that farmers, our own U.S. farmers, would lose between $645 million and $806 million a year, a year in increased transportation costs. We experienced a glimpse of that in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when the river was shut down, navigation was shut down for a short time during the fall of 2005. Farmers endured a 60- cent-per-bushel penalty on a bushel of corn during that critical time in September of 2005. And a massive failure, unfortunately, is a distinct possibility. These locks are standing just out of habit, or as my constituent, Senator Kit Bond, is fond of saying, ``These locks belong in the National Register of Historic Locations.'' They were built in the 1930s to accommodate steamboats for the next 50 years. As the gentleman pointed out, these locks are no longer navigation aids, but hindrances. They are 600 feet long. The modern barge is close to 1,200 feet, often three across and five long. What I want to emphasize again to my friend from Oregon who spoke, and others, these locks benefit the American public in other ways. The typical tow removes 870 18-wheel tractor trailer trucks from our already congested roads, bridges, and interstate highways. A gallon of diesel fuel will push one ton of freight 2\1/2\ times further by barge than by locomotive; nine times farther than by truck. Moreover, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, towboats emit 35 to 60 percent fewer pollutants than locomotives or trucks. All in all, all worthy. I urge its support.