Kenny Hulshof

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, what is irresponsible is forcing upon the American families and American businesses a tax increase if Congress does nothing. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a Member who has, more than any other Member, fought to eliminate the Federal death tax.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. HULSHOF. Regular order, Mr. Speaker. Would the Chair be kind enough to advise each side as to how much time remains.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means who has fought to eliminate the marriage penalty.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that I am confident that there are family farmers and small businesses in North Dakota that are trying to plan to pass those businesses on to their next generation, and yet cannot because of the sunset, which we are trying to repeal. Mr. Speaker, especially on the pension issue, no one has been a better champion on our side of the aisle than the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would remind the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Speaker, that Social Security and Medicare are funded with payroll taxes, not income taxes. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), another valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on each side.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader of the House.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in brief response, I would remind the gentleman, as I know the gentleman was not here during part of the debate, that the 10- year cost for the tax cut that is being considered is $374 billion, and the most recent Congressional Budget Office numbers project a $2.3 trillion surplus over that period of time. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, to conclude the debate on our side, it is my honor and privilege to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), and I am reminded that in America, pessimists are seldom prophets, and the gentleman is an optimist, and a cosponsor of this bill.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts).

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, what an appropriate time for us to really continue this debate that we began a year ago last spring when we, this body, voted in a bipartisan way to enact some significant tax relief. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was in fact tax day; and always there are jokes that sort of go around April 15. My favorite happens to be an old Farmer's Almanac saying if Patrick Henry thought taxation without representation was bad, he ought to see it with representation. As one of the members of the Committee on Ways and Means that insists on doing my own taxes, and I did not deny myself that enjoyment over the weekend, I was thinking what can we do to make the Tax Code simpler and fairer. As my seat mate on the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) has done so admirably, and over these months I feel as if I know quite well Shad and Michelle Hallihan because the gentleman tells their story so frequently on the House floor. As we set this debate up, Mr. Speaker, first of all, why is this vote necessary? Why is it that we are talking about permanence or the lack of permanence with what Congress did last summer? It is interesting to note, I think, that tax increases are always permanent. I think back, we had a debate recently about the Spanish-American war tax, a tax on luxury telephones back in 1898 to help pay for the war effort, and later the World War I effort. That tax still exists today. I think of the inheritance tax that was enacted back in 1916; it still exists today. It is a permanent tax. Even the tax increases of 1993, I know the Democratic colleagues are proud to point out that tax increase passed without one single Republican vote; and a lot of those items called deficit reduction tax still exist today. So it is ironic when we are talking about tax increases; they are always permanent. And yet when it comes to tax decreases, that is letting Americans keep more of their hard-earned money, we have to go through yeomen effort to try to make those tax cuts permanent. I have had constituents who asked me why was this sunset placed on the bill. Well, there were procedural rules. When this tax relief measure made it to the other body, there were opponents to the bill which threatened to filibuster the bill and institute a lot of arcane budget rules unless this sunset were added. There is no public policy rationale behind this sunset. It was simply an effort to avoid a procedural roadblock in the United States Senate. I do not believe that American taxpayers should be held hostage to arcane Senate budget rules. From that policy perspective, I think it is important that we vote in favor of permanence.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, there is no question about it. There was some discussion already that certain Senators were talking earlier in the year about suspending this year's tax relief and capturing those monies for additional spending. There was some discussion about whether suspending those tax cuts would in fact be a tax increase or not. Putting that aside, clearly on January 1, 2011, if Congress fails to act, we will see a significant income tax hike of billions of dollars on America's families, just as some of those that the gentleman mentioned in his congressional district. I know that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Kerns) earlier was talking about the death tax and marriage penalty relief, and I see my cosponsor of H.R. 2316, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), is here; and I look forward to hearing what he has to say. In today's Wall Street Journal there was an editorial in favor of permanence, and it was focusing on making the death tax repeal permanent. I absolutely agree with that, but I think the entire tax relief measure that we enacted in this Congress last year, all of those provisions, should be made permanent. Here is why: There are so many sole proprietors, small businesses in America, in fact, the majority of small businesses in America that actually pay the individual income tax rate. In other words, they did not pay the corporate income tax rate, but instead because they are sole proprietorships and partnerships, perhaps they are subchapter S corporations, they have the benefit of this individual income tax rate that they pay each April 15. As these income tax rates are reduced, and when they are fully phased in in 2006, small businesses are going to have additional resources for fostering economic growth and development. In other words, they capture that money that normally they would pay to the Federal Government, they get to reinvest it in their businesses which creates more jobs, provides additional spending power for those people who work for those small businesses. For then to say, to pull the rug out from underneath them on January 1, 2011, and say well, we know that you have enjoyed low tax rates of the last couple year, but on New Year's Day of 2011, these tax rates go back to the pre-2001 level, that is a significant income tax hike. It is for policy reasons that I think this body should act, and certainly I would call on all of those from both sides of the aisle that supported this bill a year ago. I think there were 28 Democrats who joined us in this bipartisan vote. If it was good policy then, it remains good policy now.

Mr. HULSHOF. I would like to amplify the point by my colleague from Wisconsin and coauthor of this bill to sunset the sunset. It is interesting that a New York Times columnist, as he was commenting on the work that we had done, and finally we were moving toward repeal of the death tax, but as the gentleman noted, for a single year, 2010, and this New York Times columnist dubbed what we had done, the ``throw momma from the train act,'' because the only way to take full advantage of the death tax repeal was to throw momma from the train in the year 2010 because on January 1 of the next year, then here comes the death tax springing out of the grave, coming back to life.

Mr. HULSHOF. As we have already begun to debate this and as representatives of the media have begun to inquire about the bill being on the floor this week, and one question that I think we have to continue to answer this week as we move forward the bill's consideration on Thursday is why are we taking up the bill now? If we are talking about something, the sunset actually not taking effect until January 1 of 2011, why consider the bill now? I think the gentleman has, in part, answered the question, because if you are a small businessperson, certainty in the Tax Code is appropriate as you make long-term decisions about your own business. Moreover, especially the death tax. You cannot legitimately plan or have an estate plan based upon the uncertainty of the death tax being gone today and back tomorrow. And so that certainty is necessary. I would say to those green eyeshade wearers in this body, I do not mean to denigrate because there are fiscal considerations to this as well, but I was informed by one of the media representatives today that the Senate majority leader said that a vote on permanence would be fiscally irresponsible. And so I want to answer with certain budget numbers, that this is fiscally responsible. If we were to enact permanence to the tax cut of a year ago, the revenue impact would be $374 billion over the next 10 years. The amount, the most recent projection by the Congressional Budget Office, that is, our bookkeepers for the House, propose that over that same period of time, we will be taking in a surplus of $2.332 trillion. And so this really, as far as the fiscalness of what we are taking up, is appropriate. I think, again, the worst thing we could do is allow these tax items, the many tax relief measures that we have been talking about, to somehow allow them to be what we know in parlance to be called extenders, that is, just as they are getting ready to expire, maybe giving another 2 or 3-year extension of that tax cut. Again, I think that just breeds a lot of uncertainty. And so from a policy perspective, I think it is so vitally important that we enact this permanence. Getting away from the numbers, if the gentleman would permit me just another minute or so, I do not have a photograph, but a family that has actually been portrayed, I think, in USA Today and some other national publications is the Eiffert family. Howard Eiffert, the constituent, is from Columbia, Missouri. Howard Eiffert began a lumber business back about 37 years ago. He has two sons now, Brad and Greg. Brad and Greg Eiffert are running the lumber business. It is a fairly small business. It employs about 32 people. Yet they are so concerned about the estate tax or the death tax that they have reported that annually they contribute between $30,000 and $35,000 a year to purchase an insurance policy on the life of Howard Eiffert, the founder of this company, in the event that he were to meet his demise in that year and that insurance policy then would pay the Federal Government this estate tax bill. Brad and Greg, who now run this company, have expressed to me so many times, and very passionately, think of what that business could do with another 30 to $35,000 a year. It could be a well-paying job for another employee every year. It could be maybe another piece of equipment. It could be adding on to their warehouse where they keep the lumber and their inventory. It could be a lot of things. But unless we make the death tax permanent, unless we take this entire tax cut of a year ago and make that tax cut permanent, there is going to be this continued uncertainty, which is a drain on our small businesses across the country. That is why I hope for a good vote this week.

Mr. HULSHOF. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. What is interesting about our Tax Code is it really does punish those who wish to save and invest. There are so many other nations that have a higher savings rate than the United States of America because we have built into our code, in fact, I am so familiar again with my 1040, having just spent so much time with it, line 8 of your 1040 says what was your interest income, put that here, because we are going to tax it. A lot of nations do not do that. So we have tried in various ways to help American families, especially as they look way down the road at retirement. We have a vexing problem ahead of us as far as the baby boomers retiring and the future solvency of Social Security. That is an issue for another day. But what we have done over the course of Congress, since 1997, as the gentleman recalls the significant tax relief that we passed back in 1997, that was actually signed into law by then President Clinton, we created some additional savings vehicles and tried to expand the opportunities for families to put money aside in 401(k) plans, or, as the gentleman knows, really a pet issue of mine, to help parents save for their childrens' education. Back in 1997, the idea was created of an education savings accounts. Now we have the ability, because of last summer's tax cut, the Bush tax cut, as the gentleman has referred to it, we have now given more flexibility to families to put money, or even neighbors or churches or businesses, to put money into a family's education account in the name of their child. It used to be pretty strict as to what that education account could be used for. Now we have some flexibility. Not only can you contribute more money into it, up to $2,000 a year, but it is not just for those students, those children who go to public college. It could be used for any educational expense for any child. It could be K through 12. It could be a tutor at school if you are having trouble with 4th grade math. It could be a computer program, it could be a foreign language skill or some help in that regard. It can be anything to help educate our kids. So this was a tremendous change, a positive change. We called it the Coverdell account in honor of the late Senator from Georgia who had first created this idea back in 1997 of putting aside money and letting the interest that is built up be tax free. I hesitate to think, I shudder to think, that if we do not make this tax cut permanent, that that flexibility is gone, the ability to contribute money into that education account, up to $2,000 a year, is gone. So the number of positive tax changes that we have helped create, in a bipartisan way, friends across the aisle have helped vote for it, worked for some of these items, those items would be no longer in the Tax Code. That positive tax relief would be obliterated if this House and Congress do not act to make the tax cut permanent.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act. This, Mr. Speaker, is the least we could do; literally, this is the least we could do, because of the political climate in which we find ourselves. This is a pragmatic solution. There have been a number of speakers who lament the fact that we have not provided worker assistance in the past, and I would remind my colleagues that we have provided that assistance in the three prior true stimulus bills. Perhaps we have missed some opportunities, because we also had some health assistance for displaced workers. My colleagues may recall we had some simplification of the capital gains holding period that a lot of small businesses have been asking us about. We had relief from the punitive Alternative Minimum Tax, which, I remind my colleagues, economically hits businesses at a time when they can least afford to be hit with this tax; that is, times of economic slowdown. Interestingly, the gentleman from Texas who spoke earlier talked about tax breaks for wealthy corporations. And yet, if these corporations are so wealthy, then why are we including a net operating loss carry-back? The fact is that these economic downtimes have caused many businesses to become awash in red ink. Ford Motor Company, for instance, that was on the top 10 recipients of additional tax relief on a chart that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle used recently, announced a layoff of a plant in St. Louis, Missouri, which is going to affect about 2,500 workers. Notwithstanding that, I think that this is a good bill and, as I have said before, inaction is not an option. I am glad that the House is finally acting.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I continue to be puzzled by this cowering in the shadow of the other body. Last night we heard that we could not try to make some genuine changes to campaign finance reform because we might somehow fall out of favor with the other body. Mr. Speaker, have we relinquished our constitutional authority over to unanimous consent requests? I think what I would like to say, first of all, is to set the record straight on the AMT, on the alternative minimum tax. This bill, just like the one in December, does not repeal the alternative minimum tax that corporations must pay. We do, however, make some crucial reforms in the AMT to maximize the impact of, for instance, the bonus depreciation investment incentives. Let me just talk about a real-life story to the gentleman from California who says that this stimulus bill would just help corporations. Recently the St. Louis business community was sent reeling with news that Ford announced a closure of a plant in Hazelwood, Missouri. About 3,000 workers' jobs are now in peril, not to mention the surrounding community, and not to mention the surrounding businesses that depend upon those workers to stay in business. A handful of political leaders, including the Democratic leader, journeyed to Detroit to meet with corporate headquarters to try to convince the automaker not to shut down this worthwhile plant in St. Louis. What if? And I do not have the answer to this, Mr. Speaker. It is a rhetorical question. What if we had passed this economic stimulus bill last fall? What if we had provided some real relief, this penalty and this counter-cyclical punishment of corporations that have to face this alternative minimum tax? What if we had been able to provide that economic help back last fall or even as far back as December? Would those workers, those 3,000 auto workers' jobs still be in jeopardy? Again, I do not have the answer to that; but to me, as we debate this, inaction continues to be not an option. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask support for the Wamp amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think that we have been viewing this entire debate through the eyes of 435 incumbents. I think we need to take a look at what changes are we making to campaign finance laws through the eyes of a challenger. I have run as a challenger on two occasions, Mr. Chairman, in 1994 and 1996, and then as a sitting office-holder in 1998 and the year 2000. I can make a case that soft money actually benefits a challenger. Nonetheless, I think we should ban soft money at the Federal level. But what do we do to assist that challenger in the meantime? I think the gentleman's amendment is right on point. We have to make it easier for someone in our respective districts to take us on. Everybody knows that there are inherent advantages to an incumbency, whether it is the power of the frank, whether it is the ability to stand here and talk and be recognized on C-SPAN. There are these built-in advantages to a sitting office-holder. What do we do for the 435 candidates who may want to seek to serve in this body? Based on that issue, I think that this amendment is timely. I think it is an issue of parity, as far as this body and the other body; and I think with the corresponding ban on soft money, I think we should look to an increase in hard dollars and really give those challengers the ability to stand for public office.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to one of America's most respected war heroes. In my congressional district, the citizens of Moberly, Missouri, have a lot to be proud of today as they gather to honor the memory of one of its favorite sons, Five Star General Omar Nelson Bradley. It is fitting that at this time of war, we take time out to remember the virtues that he exemplified: honor, dignity, patience, humility, and love of country. The son of a Randolph County school teacher, Bradley was born on this date, February 12, in 1893 in a log cabin near Moberly, Missouri. After the death of his father when he was 14, Bradley and his mother moved to Moberly where his formative years were spent, and it was during his days at Moberly High School as a star baseball player that Bradley began to develop the leadership skills that would later serve him as a leader of the Allied Forces in World War II. After he graduated from high school in the spring of 1911, Bradley worked on the Wabash Railroad to earn money to attend the University of Missouri. He was determined to put himself through school until his Sunday school superintendent encouraged him that he might have a chance at receiving a nomination to attend the U.S. Military Academy. So he used what little money he had to catch a train to St. Louis where he took the competitive exams that would determine who from his district would attend West Point. He finished first and was sworn in as a cadet in August of 1911. During his time at West Point, General Bradley was an above-average student. He graduated 44th out of 164 men in 1915, a class that many have called ``the class stars fell on.'' Nearly 20 of the 1915 graduates achieved the rank of general or higher during World War II. The academy's yearbook, ``The Howitzer,'' predicted that Bradley was destined for great things: ``His most prominent characteristic is `getting there,' '' proclaimed the yearbook, and ``if he keeps up the clip he's started, some of us will someday be bragging to our grandchildren that `sure, General Bradley was a classmate of mine.' '' Perhaps the best account of Bradley during his West Point days came from fellow classmate and future President, Dwight David Eisenhower, who wrote in Bradley's yearbook the following words: ``True merit is like a river; the deeper it is, the less noise it makes.'' The humble Bradley was already getting noticed by his peers for his hard work, his intelligence, and his ability to succeed. General Bradley was determined to out-think and out-prepare his adversaries. He challenged his troops to ``set our course by the stars, not by the lights of every passing ship.'' This brand of resolve, coupled with a Missouri down-to-earth concern and affection for his troops, made General Bradley extremely popular with all of those he commanded. During World War II, aside from the general's stars on his helmet, Bradley was often indistinguishable from many who served alongside him on the front lines. Because of his style of command, the famous war correspondent Ernie Pyle dubbed him ``the soldier's general.'' General Bradley would demonstrate his tactical and what today we call ``people skills'' with those he commanded, when in January of 1944 he was given command of the 12th Army Group. With a force of over 1.3 million men, Brad, as he was called, established what would become the western front of the war of Europe, following D-Day. Fighting in such famous battles as the Battle of the Bulge, General Bradley won the admiration of the legendary General George Patton and his West Point classmate General Eisenhower. Eisenhower called Bradley ``the master tactician of our forces'' and ``America's foremost battle leader.'' In 1948, Bradley succeeded Eisenhower as Army Chief of Staff and soon became the first chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and in that capacity, he served both during the beginning of the Korean and Cold Wars. Once he was appointed to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Bradley became the last American to receive a fifth general's star. General Omar Bradley applied the determination, fairness, and care for his fellow man that he learned from his Missouri upbringing. In the process, he became one of our Nation's greatest war heroes, especially to those who served under him. The following statement from the general himself may shed the most light on the character of this man and the inspiration he was to so many, quote: ``This is as true in everyday life as it is in battle. We are given one life and the decision is ours to make up our mind on whether to act and, in acting, to live.'' It is clear that the leadership of great men like General Omar Nelson Bradley over a half century ago allows us to live as we do today. And on this day, we are honored to show a small portion of our thanks and appreciation to this great citizen, soldier, Missourian, and American.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to invoke the wrath of the Chair by mentioning the other body. I do not intend, in fact, to focus my comments except for on those colleagues who are actually considering the merits of the bill. Not those, for instance, who say they are in favor of free trade, but then vote against a free trade bill; not against those who say they want some sort of stimulus, but then do everything they can to prevent that stimulus from happening. What I would like to do is ask a simple question. My colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), asked this question earlier, and I ask it again: Why are we here? The answer to that question I think can be found in a videotape that was released last week of a dinner in Afghanistan when Osama bin Laden boasted to his dinner companions that the attack on September 11 exceeded his wildest expectations. Yes, those terrorists went into those Twin Towers in Lower Manhattan, but they did not intend for those towers of commerce to topple. But they did. Along with that, our economy has been rocked. Even the Democratic former Secretary of Treasury has said that we were teetering on a recession, but clearly we are in that recession now. This is a bill that addresses the needs of our economy now. It helps rebuild that sagging economy. Some of the statements on the floor have been just blatantly wrong. Certainly every person is entitled to his or her own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own set of facts, and the facts are these: There is an immediate stimulus in this bill. My friend from Maryland said that there was no immediate stimulus. We are going to have $90 billion over the next 9 months if this bill were to become law. My friend from Florida says that the governors have complained. My own Governor from the State of Missouri has complained that if this bill were passed, that Missouri would be harmed. We have $8.6 billion for Medicaid reimbursements and other grants so that States are held harmless. In addition to boosting consumer confidence, we accepted an idea, a constructive idea, from the other side, a $14 billion income supplement, even if you do not pay income taxes. We boost investor confidence to small business owners, a short-term incentive to invest in equipment. Those laid-off workers, this bill is three times more generous than the bill this House passed a few weeks ago. For Members who are interested in the policy, Mr. Speaker, inaction is not an option. For Members of this body who are purely interested in politics, however, I say this: A ``no'' vote means an extended recession. The blood of that extended recession will be on your hands. I urge a ``yes'' vote.