Kenny Hulshof

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act. There are a lot of issues that are addressed that are important to Americans with disabilities that depend upon Title II and Title XVI. Individuals facing the challenges of life with a disability need these protections that are proposed on the representative payee provisions. There are about 6 million Americans that receive Social Security and supplemental security income. These beneficiaries often have family members or loved ones who act on their behalf, and yet there are some of those receiving these benefits that go to services, a fee for this service of being a representative payee. If someone receives a fee for this service, now they must be bonded and licensed. And if this representative payee chooses to pray on the disability or the elderly, society's most vulnerable, then tough civil monetary penalties will result. These changes are important and necessary. Another provision deserving mention, Mr. Speaker, is contained within section 401 through 405. In 1999, this body enacted some breakthrough changes for individuals with disabilities, specifically the Ticket to Work and Work Incentive Improvement Act. The Ticket to Work rolled over barriers that prevented countless employable individuals with disabilities from rejoining the workforce. Yet now we need to make some technical corrections. For instance, one of the things in the original Ticket to Work bill was a demonstration project which allowed the commissioners of Social Security to look at other ways to employ those that want to rejoin the workforce. One of the technical corrections is that we extend the 5-year limit on designing and implementing these worthy demonstration projects. I am especially interested personally in abolishing this so-called ``income cliff.'' That is, if an individual is employable and works and achieves earnings up to a certain amount, if that individual makes $1 more than that, they fall off the cliff and lose all of their Social Security disability benefits. I encourage this sliding scale, for every $2 earned, maybe losing $1 of disability benefits. Yet we need to make those technical corrections to the bill so employer networks will accept these beneficiaries that are participating in this $1 for $2 offset demonstration project. So these are worthy changes. Let me quickly address the issue of my colleagues from Texas. There was a recent study that the General Accounting Office came back to our committee in August of last year with, at the request of the chairman, and found this last-day exemption, this loophole, found that nearly 5,000 individuals in two States were taking advantage of this loophole in order to get around the requirements of law. What we do is simply implement the changes of the GAO. What the General Accounting Office found was that we were allowing, current law was allowing a select group of individuals with really a small investment of work time and only minimal Social Security contributions to really gain access to potentially many years of full Social Security benefits. I recognize this is a tough situation for those Members from those particular States; but as the chairman alluded after the last speaker, this is something that brings those States in line with the other 48 States. Again a difficult but necessary, important change. These changes are overdue. I urge adoption of H.R. 743.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 150th anniversary of Culver-Stockton College, which is located in Canton, Missouri. Culver-Stockton College was founded as Christian University by early leaders of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Canton, Missouri was chosen as the school's location based on the close proximity to the Mississippi River and the enthusiasm for higher education shared by the Lewis County Disciples. The State of Missouri issued the college's charter on January 28, 1853. In 1917, Christian University was renamed Culver-Stockton College to honor benefactors Mary Culver and Robert Stockton. Culver-Stockton's visionary founders were clearly ahead of their time. The school was the first college chartered west of the Mississippi River to educate both men and women. As both Christian University and Culver-Stockton College, the school has compiled a proud record of accomplishment and has made a meaningful contribution to the community throughout its history. The forward-thinking ideas that are the foundation for Culver- Stockton College still influence the school today. Culver-Stockton is a 4-year residential, coeducational college that asks its students to realize their full potential. The college's alumni are living proof of the professional, personal and social service development that is cultivated on Culver-Stockton's campus. The college's administration, faculty and staff are committed to educational excellence, character development, and the integration of liberal arts. In recent years, Culver-Stockton has achieved distinctions that include being named one of America's Best Christian Colleges, inclusion in the Templeton Foundation's ``Colleges that Encourage Character Development'' and membership in the Lilly Fellows Program in Humanities and the Arts. With its Sesquicentennial Gala Week, Culver-Stockton College launches a year-long celebration of its 150-year history. This provides the opportunity to not only reflect on the school's past contributions, but to appreciate the important role the college continues to play in educating our future leaders. I congratulate both Culver-Stockton's administration and student body on achieving this milestone in education history.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, ``When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for the people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them.'' When the delegates to the Second Continental Congress began to debate those immortal words in July of 1776, they did not have the long lens of history to guide them. These bold men adopted the radical idea of independence based upon deeply-held convictions and beliefs that bloodshed, though unwanted, was a probable course. Indeed, when the document declaring independence was executed in August of that year, 30,000 British and Hessian troops were assembled at Staten Island, New York, a 3 days' journey from Philadelphia. At first blush, those of you reminded of this narrative would quickly make the distinction that those Philadelphia delegates and the colonists they represented were in imminent peril, and we are not. Is that in fact the case after September 11? America's enemies today do not dispatch columns of infantrymen ``across the green'' or battleships upon the high seas. Instead, we face a deadlier threat in chemical and biological weapons willing to be dispersed by an army of anonymous killers. This 107th Congress, as our forefathers before, must face this difficult issue without the benefit of history's clarity. I have been contacted by a number of Missourians with wide-ranging opinions, and some have proclaimed, ``Let us not wage war with Iraq.'' Would that I could will it so, possessing the knowledge as I do of the threat Iraq poses. Would that Saddam Hussein lay down his arms, those weapons designed to commit mass murder against the defenseless. Now, time does not permit me to make my case, but there has been a lot of discussion about the case that has been made, and I am convinced that Iraq continues to possess and manufacture weapons of mass destruction in defiance of 12 years of Security Council resolutions. My colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a good friend, a moment ago said there is no definitive link between Iraq and the attacks of September 11, 2001; and I acknowledge that. However, our United States intelligence services have detected that Saddam's regime has begun efforts to reach out to terrorist groups with global reach. I acknowledge that Saddam Hussein's regime is largely secular and has often clashed with fanatical religious fundamentalist groups. However, I am mindful of a disquieting adage, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The resolution I support today suggests a variety of means to disarm Iraq without immediately resorting to the end of open warfare. It is imperative that the United Nations take strong action to implement a comprehensive and unfettered regime of weapons inspections. It is deeply troubling to me, however, that the only thing that seems to compel Saddam Hussein into compliance is the threat of military force. Certainly many questions remain. However, the risks of inaction are greater, in my mind, than the risks of action. Ironically, a number of family members who lost loved ones last September have come to Capitol Hill and have questioned the inability of our intelligence agencies to foresee those attacks prior to September 11. Why did we not act upon those threads of information, they ask plaintively? Why did we not prevent the horrific attacks of that crisp, clear morning? Mr. Speaker, let us not allow that tragic history to be repeated. We have a moral responsibility to defend our Nation from harm. This conflict has been brought to us, and we have provoked it only by being free. We must move forward decisively, confident in the knowledge that our voices, which cry out so desperately for a lasting peace, have been and will be heard by the rest of the world.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), another valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5203) to provide that the education savings incentives of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall be permanent, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is back-to-school time. Indeed, as I look at the clock above the Speaker's chair, in about 2 hours when we call for votes, this Chamber will fill with our colleagues; and there will be some of the same giddiness as kids going back to school. And the inevitable question we ask one another is what did you do on your summer break? Certainly I think as we prepare for some very solemn events later this week as well as next week and certainly recognizing the impact of a year ago, I think a lot of attention has caused us to really forget some of the important education initiatives that have passed and become law. Specifically, this Congress began last year with a renewed commitment to education. ``Leave no child behind'' has become a familiar mantra. In fact that landmark legislation of leaving no child behind is now the law of the land and really starts with the mindset that a child, any child, can learn. As President Bush stated, indeed as Governor of the State of Texas, ``The Federal Government must be humble enough to stay out of the day- to-day operation of local schools, wise enough to give State and local school districts more authority and freedom, and strong enough to require results. We must make our schools worthy of all of our children. Whatever their background, their cause is our cause. It must not be lost.'' Thereupon we came together in a very bipartisan way and passed that landmark legislation. But Congress did not stop there. Last summer in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, there were some significant tax incentives to improve the affordability of education, not just higher education but kindergarten through elementary school, through secondary, essentially schoolchildren of all ages that would be able to take advantage of through their parents or other mentors or family members, opportunities of savings vehicles and incentives through the Tax Code. Yet, Mr. Speaker, as you know and as this body knows, a year ago when we enacted the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, because of some very technical, arcane procedural rules in the other body, there was a sunset provision placed upon those tax incentives relating to education. What this bill today, H.R. 5203, attempts to do is to make permanent those positive savings vehicles, those tax incentives that would help all parents across the country really focus on their children's education. Certainly, as we debated this a year ago, the idea is a simple one. No child should be discriminated against because of the choice of where he or she goes to school. Public schools, private schools, religious schools, home schools, any child should have the advantage of these tax incentives through parents or other mentors as far as educational expenses. We cannot in Congress, of course, set tuition rates. We cannot set student fees. In my hometown of Columbia, Missouri, as college students are coming back, they are lamenting the fact that they are facing an 8 percent tuition hike this year. There is nothing that not only this legislative body but other State legislatures can do as far as the rising cost of tuition. However, we have acted as far as making college education and other educational expenses more affordable, education more accessible. It is time to make those provisions in the Tax Code permanent, those tax relief measures. This body has acted making the entire Economic Tax Reconciliation Act of 2001 permanent. We have also acted as a body to make those pension opportunities permanent, the marriage penalty repeal permanent as well as the death tax repeal. We believe it is time for Congress to make a renewed commitment to make permanent the education tax incentives. Accordingly, I ask that H.R. 5203 be adopted. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 90 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the other side for waiting until at least the second speaker to bring up the mantra ``tax breaks for the wealthy.'' What I would like to do is refute that comment specifically from the last speaker. As this body knows, we have yet to reach the appropriation for public education. The Labor, Health, Education appropriations bill is yet to come. That is the funding mechanism for public schools. I would take issue with my friend from Washington State who declared that somehow there are cuts in public education. Since 1995, this body has increased funding for public education by nearly 30 percent, and I dare say I question how additional funds in public education is perceived to be a cut. Specifically, to the point raised by the last speaker, 70 percent of the tax savings just from education savings accounts go to families with children in public schools making less than $75,000 a year. Let me repeat that statement: 70 percent of the benefits of education savings accounts go to public school children whose parents make a combined income of less than $75,000. There are 14 million families whose children benefit from just the education savings account vehicle. Almost 11 million of those are children who attend public schools. So I think that clearly the issue of funding of public education is something this body will consider later in the appropriations process, and I certainly take issue with the comments of the last speaker. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to respond to the gentleman from Texas. Under existing law that the President signed last June, here is who can contribute into a Coverdell education account. By the way, this is mirrored on the premise of the Roth IRA; that is, that one contributes monies into a savings account and then the interest that builds up, the power of compound interest, as Einstein talked about, as that interest builds up, it is tax-free if used in a Roth IRA, for instance, for retirement expenses and in the Coverdell account for education expenses. Here is who can contribute to an education account: anyone. Parents, teachers, mentors, small business owners, corporations, charities, foundations, labor unions, concerned citizens, church groups, anybody can designate funds to go into an education account for any child. Now, I would say to the gentleman, in fact, this is new resources, incentives that would not be committed to education but for the fact that we put them in the Tax Code and provide this tax incentive. This year alone, this year alone, 3.5 billion more private dollars are being allocated specifically to educating our kids just this year. The other point I would make is simply, everyone keeps talking about the budget picture. Again, keep in mind that there is absolutely no budget impact, or a minimal budget impact, making this permanent until the year 2010 and 2011. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to directly respond to the question posed by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). The amount that H.R. 5203 would add to the budget deficit this year: zero. The amount that H.R. 5203 would add to the budget deficit of next year: zero. The amount that H.R. 5203 would add to the budget deficit in the next 6, 7 years: zero. In fact, I would say to the gentleman, as he cites the Congressional Budget Office, that when the budget impact of H.R. 5203 hits in the year 2011 to the tune of $2.3 billion, CBO projects that we will be back in the black to the tune of $3.2 billion. Also, in the year 2012, when there is a budget impact from our bill today of another $3.2 billion, CBO projects another $522 billion of surplus. The other point I would like to make, especially to the gentleman from Michigan, is this: we are trying to make permanent one of the provisions that he sponsored. H.R. 1438 provides taxpayer assistance, employer-provided assistance to permanently extend exclusion for the cost of undergraduate courses and graduate level courses. That is a bill that was coauthored by the gentleman from Michigan. It happens that of the $5.5 billion in those outyears, that $2.2 billion of those $5 billion are making permanent the bill that the gentleman has indeed introduced here.

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

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

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time to close, as we have no further speakers. I would say to the gentleman and others, my friends, and I consider them my friends, many of whom are on the committee, I certainly hope that this interest in fiscal discipline remains as we really grapple with these appropriations bills, the challenge that remains ahead of us over the next weeks. Mr. Speaker, the idea is that we want to encourage families to put aside money for their children's education expenses. It was good policy a year ago. It is not good politics, it is just good policy to help those children achieve the American dream. Everybody has talked about their children. My daughter, who is almost 3, one on the way in December, and as we think of providing the best education possible for all of our children, is it not prudent to put aside that money at the earliest possible time, certainly as we see the cost of tuition continue to go up? If Congress fails to act, Mr. Speaker, here are the provisions that we will lose come January 1 of 2011. Instead of the annual contribution limit to an education account being $2,000 a year, it would revert to $500. Instead of expanding these education account benefits to all kids who go to any type of school, we would be simply focused on those of college education and forgetting about those educational expenses for special needs kids or educational expenses for those in kindergarten through elementary school and secondary education. My friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), talked about section 529 plans. The reason we need to make these tax incentives permanent is as we invest into a prepaid tuition plan or section 529 plan, the thrust of that is that those withdrawals that we make in those years that those kids, I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), that are not college age yet, when they reach college age, if we fail to act, those distributions out of those section 529 plans are going to be taxable and not tax-free. That is certainly a good policy reason why we need to act today to make these incentives long-term. Prepaid tuition plans. Again, as the gentleman from Michigan talked about, he has been a champion of tax-free employer-provided education assistance, not just for graduate education but for undergraduate education, again, trying to provide and enlist as many opportunities for individuals in this country of all ages to better themselves through more education. And certainly the student-interest loan deduction, again, if we fail to act, we will once again put limits on the amount of interest that can be deducted on those burdensome student loans if we fail to act. Again, Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting debate. I would just simply say that if it was good policy as we debated this and voted on it as the House and the President signed it into law 1 year ago, it remains good policy today. We need to provide permanent relief to families who want to help their children achieve the American dream. Mr. Kind. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of making education more affordable and accessible to our nation's students. HR 5203, however, does not actually benefit the majority of students and families. Education savings accounts were established in 1997 as a tool for families to save money over a period of years for their children's higher education. Congress recognized the growing cost of college and the increasing difficulty families face trying to pay for college, and created these accounts to encourage early savings. Last year's tax cut legislation increased the contribution limit for education savings accounts from $500 to $2,000 and expanded the definition of qualified education expenses that can be paid from an education savings accounts to include elementary and secondary school expenses for public, private, or religious schools. While I support making education more affordable, HR 5203 will allow parents to use these statutorily created education savings accounts-- tax free--for almost ANY aspect they consider relevant to their child's education, at any school from kindergarten through college. If parents feel they need a new sport utility vehicle to drive their kids to school; That is OK. If they need a new microwave oven to prepare breakfast for their kids before school; That is OK. If I want to use these funds, tax free, to pay my older son Johnny to tutor my younger son Matthew on the ABCs; That is OK. Mr. Speaker, these examples seem silly for good reason; this bill does nothing to help families or to teach children. We need to focus our national attention on helping needy families, fixing ailing public schools, and leveraging community investment to help parents, teachers and administrators meet the important educational challenges they face in serving the vast majority of our children. In addition, we need to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) passed last year. Our Public schools currently serve approximately 90 percent of students in grades K-12 and face record-breaking enrollments. The NCLB gave parents the choice to transfer their kids from a failing public school to non-failing public school. Recent reports show, however, that very few students are actually able to benefit from this because our schools cannot accommodate any additional children. We should act smarter to devote scarce federal dollars to ensure that all our children receive the education they deserve. Finally, the bill is fiscally irresponsible. Last year's tax cut bill halted our progress in reducing the national debt. Virtually all the projected surpluses that were used to justify last year's bill have now disappeared. Furthermore, enactment of the bill being considered today would further increase the budget deficit that already is occurring as a result of last year's bill. I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing the underlying bill. This is not the time to be considering a tax cut that our country cannot afford when there is no assurance that the money will truly benefit all families equally.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of H.R. 5203, the bill just debated.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. My colleagues, let me first thank you all for your attention and presence here. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Obey) pointed out to me during the vote that back in 1980, as this matter was being discussed, only a handful of Members were here for that debate over the expulsion of Mr. Myers. And so your continued presence here is a testament to this institution. The gentleman from Ohio has referenced the lack of evidence and the quality of evidence. Is there anybody in this Chamber who believes that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) could be captured incriminating himself on tape? Should we, in this case or any other case, reward a wrongdoer because he has the wherewithal to avoid being captured in the act? Shall a clever criminal who has enriched himself at taxpayer expense be further enriched because he almost avoided detection? I paraphrased comments made by a member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct back in 1980 in that matter. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has violated the House rules not only as an individual who happened to be a public servant, but as a public servant who traded upon that very elected office. There is no one who disputes that the gentleman has fought aggressively for his constituents in the 17th Congressional District of Ohio. I daresay that 435 Members who come here every week do the same for constituents back home across this land, and yet we come here in the public good, not to enrich ourselves for private profit. To my colleagues who were sworn in in this Chamber on January 7, 1997, in the 105th Congress, what an interesting tenure we have had. Our first vote for Speaker of the House, who had an ethics cloud hanging over his head; our last vote as freshmen members on the impeachment matter of a sitting president; and here we are again tonight with the lens of history trained upon us. There are some who have been fretting about this vote and that we are debating it in prime time, of all things. Well, my colleagues, I believe that tonight is going to be one of this institution's finest hours. To the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), I absolutely agree with his statements on the previous motion. It should take extraordinary wrongdoing to override the wishes of a voter in a Congressional district. I believe that. And I believe this is one such case. Sometimes when we walk in darkness, we are overcome with the brilliant light of truth. A little over 300 days ago, we assembled as a body on the darkest day of our Nation's history, and we sent a glimmer of light to the people we represent that you can extinguish thousands of American lives, but you will not extinguish the American spirit. And yet when you destroy that fragile bond of trust between the elected and the electorate, expulsion is the only appropriate remedy, regrettably, and I ask for that vote.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I hold the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) in highest esteem. Over the course of the past 10 days, during this very long and arduous process, we have agreed and we have disagreed. We have passionately advocated different points of view, and I respectfully disagree with this motion and urge my colleagues to vote down that motion to continue. What I would like to do is really just address just the folks who may be harboring these thoughts or fears of an acquittal or some different outcome during this appellate process, which I absolutely agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) will not be concluded within 6 weeks. Our task today, Mr. Speaker, is as different from that criminal jury verdict as the legislative branch is different from the judiciary. Our task tonight is as dissimilar as article I is different and separate and apart from article III. Unlike the matter that was debated on this House floor on October 2, 1980, in Mr. Myers' case, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct relied entirely upon the guilty verdicts. Mr. Myers had not been given a full-blown hearing before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. As my colleagues know and has been discussed, we had that hearing. In fact, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) was given great latitude. He was treated generously by a committee of his colleagues who respected the gravity of the occasion which brought us face to face. Would that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) had acted in a reciprocal manner, but even the antics of last week are irrelevant to the decision that was reached by our committee. We reached our decision on 9 of 10 violations of House rules independent and apart from the jury verdict in Cleveland. So on the process and procedural grounds the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. LaTourette) motion must fail, but on substance, it fails as well. This witness, Mr. Detore, the committee considered his testimony and rejected it. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) pointed out, and let me reiterate, Mr. Detore exonerated himself for the criminal charge with which he was indicted, and yet he offered no defense to the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Traficant) kickback scheme of accepting $30,000. Mr. Detore offered no defense on the $30,000 kickback scheme between the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and a congressional staffer. Mr. Detore provided no testimony on the illegal gratuities supplied by constituents to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) at the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Traficant) behest. Mr. Detore offered nothing on the charge of obstructing justice by encouraging others to give false testimony to the authorities. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of reference and comparison between what we are doing today and tonight compared to that same debate that was within these hallowed halls some 22 years ago. Perhaps one other comparison, I hope, is appropriate. The House of Representatives in the Myers case voted down Mr. Stokes' motion 332 to 75. For procedural and substantive grounds, the motion from the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) must fail.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and what I would say to my friend who just spoke is that if the idea is to make it easier to pass the family business to the next generation, then we should get rid of the death tax. And if then those surviving heirs wish to dispose of that family farm or business, then maybe they will be subject to the capital gains tax. I would like to pose a rhetorical question to my friend, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), and I will set up the hypothetical like this. Howard Eiffert, in my hometown of Columbia, Missouri, began the Boone County Lumber Business back in 1965. He has two sons, Brad and Greg. They employ about 31 people in Columbia with good paying jobs. Everybody there works very hard to make sure the business is successful. Under the gentleman's substitute, will the heirs of Mr. Eiffert have to pay the death tax?

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

Mr. HULSHOF. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I offered the question in good faith, and I think the answer is the best the gentleman could give me, because the answer is he does not know. And I do not know. In fact, I would suggest that the Eiffert family at this point does not know. They do not know what the value of the estate will be when the founder of that company dies, whether it is going to be under $6 million or over $6 million. So we cannot determine at this point whether or not these numbers the gentleman is throwing around, whether this small family business in Columbia, Missouri, is going to be helped by the gentleman's substitute or not. The larger point I hope to make is this: As long as we maintain a Federal estate tax, we still are going to have to have resources committed to Federal estate plans. In fact, there is a lot of concern about loss of manufacturing in this country, especially from my friends on the other side. The National Association of Manufacturers says that the average small manufacturer in America spends $52,000 a year to avoid the death tax. To me, there is a simple question here today: Should the death of a family member be a taxable event? Period. My answer is, Mr. Speaker, a simple one: A resounding no.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. What I want to do, Mr. Speaker, is kind of set the record straight. There have been a couple of comments made by the other side, the gentleman from Illinois, that said somehow what we are doing today is going to cost $4 trillion. Let me just advise the Members of the House there is actually no budget number from the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Tax Committee or any official scorekeeper that says any such thing. Secondly, the other side says we are taking this money out of Social Security. That also is not true. We are talking about budget implications in the fiscal years 2011 and 2012 when we are going to be running surpluses. The numbers, Mr. Speaker, are that over the next 10 years, permanence would cost $374 billion. At the same time, we are projected to have a surplus of $2.3 trillion.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, again, I am compelled to respond to the gentleman from Texas, my friend, who just spoke. The fact is, and again I respect those that bring the green eye shade approach here, keeping in mind, of course, that the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Tax do not take into account the economic benefits that are going to happen from small businesses being able to invest. But even assuming the numbers, we have on-budget surpluses; in the most recent numbers, on- budget surpluses in the year that this permanent tax cut kicks in. If we really want to talk about numbers, the fact is that if we do nothing, nearly 4 million people that are now off the tax rolls are going to be put back on them, and 3 million of those are families with kids. So I would urge that we vote in favor of this measure.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the time. My friend from New Jersey awhile ago quoted Woody Allen. Let me provide this quote that I came across in an old ``Farmers Almanac'' recently. It said, ``If Patrick Henry thought taxation without representation was bad, he ought to see it with representation''; and I think Mr. Henry would look at what we did a year ago and he would roll over in his grave because this sunset that was placed on this tax cut has no policy reason at all. It was simply put there by the other body by the bill's opponents. Why is it, I ask my colleagues, especially those 28 of them, many of whom spoke here today, why is it that tax increases are always permanent? We are still paying for the Spanish-American War with the tax on luxury telephones that was passed in 1898. The death tax that we are trying to repeal once and for all was enacted in 1916. We still have deficit reduction taxes that my colleagues put on the American people back in 1993. So it is a good policy reason that we make these tax cuts permanent. What is going to happen if we do not? What I hear from the other side of the aisle is, talking about this, we cannot afford this tax cut. Mr. Speaker, if we do nothing, this cost has to be borne by someone, and that someone is the American family, it is the American business, because we know if we do nothing, they are going to see the largest tax increase our Nation has ever had thrust upon them. Mr. Speaker, a bipartisan majority voted to enact these tax relief measures that we passed a year ago. If it was good policy then, it remains good policy now. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the underlying legislation. The material referred to earlier by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) is as follows: Previous Question on H. Res. 390, Rule for H.R. 586, Fairness for Foster Care Families Act of 2001 At the end of the resolution, add the following new section: Sec. ____(a) Upon adoption of the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 586, the enrolling clerk of the House of Representatives shall-- (1) prepare an engrossment of the House amendment without title ____ (related to the repeal of the sunset provision of the Economic Growth and Taxpayer Relief Act of 2001) and transmit it to the Senate for further legislative action; and (2) prepare an engrossment of a bill comprised of title

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just say in response to the gentleman that the only budget this House has considered this year does, in fact, include room to make these tax cuts permanent. In fact, the most recent numbers from our official scorekeepers, the Congressional Budget Office, as well as the Joint Tax Committee, tell us this extension would take from the Treasury $374 billion over 10 years. At the same time, we would accumulate surpluses of $2.3 trillion. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.