Kenny Hulshof

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3346) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to simplify the reporting requirements relating to higher education tuition and related expenses.

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 include extraneous material on H.R. 3346.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, education is the great equalizer, and getting a college education remains a part of the American dream. Yet affording that education at an institution of higher learning can be a nightmare for a prospective student or that student's family. According to a 1997 GAO report, since the early 1980s college tuition has increased by 234 percent, which of course far outpaces the cost of living or any rise in family income. Some students balance their class work with part-time jobs, others rely on financial aid packages or scholarships. This body, Mr. Speaker, has attempted in the past to ease the financial burden. Back in 1997 Congress passed and former President Clinton signed into law the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. This legislation created the Hope Tax Credit as well as the Lifetime Learning Tax Credit to help families afford the cost of sending a child to college. Since then we have built on our work. We have added to the success of the 1997 bill. We have expanded education savings account. We have made prepaid tuition plans more attractive, and we have expanded the student loan interest deduction. When the merits of the Hope Credit and the Lifetime Learning Credit were being considered back in 1997, the potential compliance costs for colleges and universities were raised as a potential drawback. In fact, I recall and probably the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) may recall the particular hearing we had in front of the Committee on Ways and Means and the former Treasury Secretary was appearing before us, and I asked Mr. Rubin about the compliance cost. We had been alerted to some potential substantial administrative burdens that colleges and universities were going to have to undertake, even while implementing this worthwhile legislation. I recall the answer that Mr. Rubin gave; he felt it would be a small, insignificant cost. In fact, I think he said it would be the cost of a pencil and a piece of paper. Well, as C-SPAN was covering that hearing live that day, the phone lines in our congressional office began to light up as school administrators from around the country began to call, again with this concern about this burden, this compliance cost that they would have to undertake if, in fact, we enacted the HOPE scholarship or the HOPE tax credit, as well as the lifetime learning credit and, unfortunately, their premonition has been borne out. It has been clear that our Nation's institutions of higher learning have faced significant increased administrative burdens, which brings us today. The bill before us, H.R. 3346 that has been introduced by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), accomplishes the goal of reducing administrative burdens on schools, while retaining the integrity of the HOPE and lifetime learning credits. We accomplish this by modifying how tuition amounts are reported and also eliminating an unneeded reporting requirement in current law that colleges and universities provide the Internal Revenue Service with the name, address, and taxpayer identification number of taxpayers who could claim students attending the school as dependents. While these changes may seem minor, I can assure my colleagues that they will greatly reduce the administrative burdens on our colleges and universities. I urge this body to be supportive of H.R. 3346. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the author and original sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have a few concluding remarks. First, I want to amplify a point that my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), made regarding the situation regarding the computer systems. The point is that as educational institutions begin to raise some concerns that these new reporting requirements would require their schools to completely revamp their computer systems at a substantial cost, these institutions noted that complying with the law's requirement to report tuition payments received would be difficult, and that because schools keep a running total of the payments that they receive from students, in other words, payments are not applied separately to tuition, but instead are applied to a student's total outstanding balance that may include room and board, books, student fees for recreational activities, or other costs, and, moreover, payments are not applied to any particular academic year. As a result, these institutions would have had to change their accounting and computer systems dramatically to make them compatible with reporting requirements. We have undertaken, instead, a change in those reporting requirements so those colleges and universities will not have to undertake that substantial cost. As a final comment, I would just advise my colleagues that in the 1999 calendar year, the Hope scholarship credit was claimed by 3,334,000 students; the lifetime learning tax credit was claimed for 3,575,000 college students. Clearly, the work we have done here in Congress back in 1997 has taken a large step forward as far as making higher education more affordable. I think we are taking an additional step forward for the administrators of these colleges and universities by reducing their burden.

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of H.R. 3346, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate and acknowledge the life and memory of John B. Hyatt, a constituent and friend, a longtime Columbia, Missouri, businessman, a devoted husband and father, an avid golfer, a passionate Missouri Tiger fan, a community activist. John Hyatt was born in the small Missouri town of Fayette in 1924. He served our country, enlisting in the Navy at the age of 19. He was stationed in the Pacific during World War II and was honorably discharged in 1946. Upon his return home, John attended Central Missouri State University and excelled in basketball. In fact, Mr. Speaker, after graduation, he began his professional career as a high school coach. In order to supplement his modest coach's salary, John began selling life insurance. It became apparent that his prowess as a coach was only surpassed by his innate abilities as a salesman. He concluded a successful 40-year career with State Farm Insurance in 1994. John's greatest sale, however, was reserved for his personal life. It was in 1953 that he convinced his best friend's sister, Mary, to become his life's partner. Together they had two children, Vicky and Bill. On Wednesday, November 7, the Boone County Citizens for Good Government will pay tribute to John Hyatt posthumously with the Guardian of Good Government award. There can be, I think, no greater tribute. He was to me a good friend, a confidante, a sage political adviser, but not just in words, but in deeds. The 17th century philosopher Francis Bacon said this: He that gives good advice builds with one hand; he that gives good counsel and example builds with both. That describes the essence of my friend, John Hyatt. It was, in fact, John Hyatt who cofounded the Boone County Citizens for Good Government in the 1980s. In those early days, the group, under his watch, took a bold stand on some controversial issues and had a few setbacks. John remained undeterred. He was unafraid to challenge the status quo. Good government, John explained to me simply, deserves nothing less. John took those political lessons to heart, and the Boone County Citizens for Good Government resurfaced with a renewed commitment to candidates and community causes. He was then and remained fiercely independent. John believed strongly in the two-party system, and supported individuals in either party. It was our principles that John looked for, our integrity, our character. So to have John Hyatt in one's corner for an upcoming election was a strong ally for any candidate. John kept politics in perspective, however. It was, after all, family and friends that made life's journey worthwhile. He was an eternal optimist. Mr. Speaker, I am quite confident John never read the works of A.A. Willitts, yet the words of the author are descriptive of the man being honored by this tribute: ``Get into the habit of looking for the silver lining of the cloud, and when you have found it, continue to look at it, rather than at the leaden gray in the middle. . . . There is no path but will be easier traveled, no load but will be lighter, no shadow on heart or brain but will lift sooner for a person of determined cheerfulness.'' Mr. Speaker, that is the legacy of John Hyatt. For those of us blessed to have known him, our lives have been enriched beyond measure. The less fortunate among us have been comforted by his generosity. Our community and its leaders have become better guardians of the public trust through his quiet challenges. Mr. Speaker, I add my name to those who gather and salute the memory of John Hyatt as a guardian of good government.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, we face many challenges in the wake of the terrorist attacks since September 11. We have responded as far as allocating additional resources to address some of our military needs, our intelligence needs, in fact some monies for airline security; and we have more to do. But one of the most difficult challenges we are trying to face today is the state of the national economy. As was stated before, our economy was in distress before September 11, but it has worsened since. A recent Wall Street Journal analysis says in the last 6 weeks, we have taken a $100 billion hit to the economy, not counting the tens of billions of dollars for the disaster assistance and rebuilding Lower Manhattan or rebuilding the Pentagon. One part of the solution I think is what we are considering today. Some say we should not even respond in a fiscal year. I reject that. Should we let the business cycle run its course? Should we allow a faltering economy to topple into recession, like those magnificent towers in Lower Manhattan? I believe fiscal stimulus is as essential as the expedited disaster relief for the clean-up efforts in Lower Manhattan and Northern Virginia. I think this is a balanced approach. We addressed the human impact of the attacks. Hundreds of thousands of individuals who are in dire financial straits through no fault of their own are offered a helping hand by rate acceleration, by payments to individuals. We accepted, I would say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), your idea of a tax rebate or income supplement to those who pay income tax, payroll taxes, but did not share in the tax rebates of this last tax bill. We add supplemental health insurance as well as unemployment benefits. But let me say something to my colleague from Missouri, from south St. Louis, who spoke earlier. The United Auto Workers at the GM plant in Wentzville, Missouri, in my district, do not want a check from the Government. Those workers on the assembly line want to do what they do best, and that is to build these prototypes, these state-of-the-art minivans. They want to do what they know how to do best. They want to continue to turn out these state-of-the-art minivans on the assembly plants that I had the good fortune to visit 2 months ago. So it is a good balance, Mr. Speaker, that we are putting money in the pockets of those consumers to go out and buy the minivans. But we are also focusing on some business incentives, the 30 percent expensing, the 5-year carry-back losses that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) talked about. I want to talk about something that my friend from Wisconsin on the committee talked about as far as capital gains. In 1997 this body passed in a very bipartisan effort a reduction in the capital gains tax rate of an 18 percent and an 8 percent capital gains tax rate. What we did at that time, of course, was we created this very complicated 5- year holdover or carryover of these types of assets. All we do is simply eliminate that 5-year carry-back. For those people saying it is not an economic stimulus, look at the chart. In fiscal year 2003, we are going to raise tax revenues by $1.45 billion in that year alone, just because of this simplification. I urge all my colleagues to vote for this plan.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, words fail us. We dutifully attempt to muster as much eloquence as is humanly possible; and yet no one can adequately express the events that have so dominated us during these dark days. The most basic civil right of humankind is to be free from fear. Yesterday, every American had his or her civil rights forcibly violated. These unprovoked, yet provocative, attacks on the highest profile symbols of American culture have caused untold loss of life. Innocent victims perished for no other reason other than they were Americans. As a Nation we were knocked to our knees with the graphic pictures and sounds as we collectively experienced the horrific tragedies in New York, near Pittsburg, and here in Washington, D.C. We now remain on our knees and murmur a collective prayer to the God who has placed the dream of freedom in every human heart. Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress, each one of us swore an oath to protect and preserve our liberty and freedom from all enemies, foreign and domestic. When a domestic terrorist selected Oklahoma City as his target, we extracted from him the fullest measure of punishment allowed by law. We must be as a body no less committed in this case. The conspiracy of foreign enemies have committed acts of war against the sovereignty and against the security of these United States. Therefore, be it highly resolved that these honored dead shall not have died in vain. You may have extinguished American lives, but you have not and never can extinguish our American spirit. We have and will continue to survive even this most difficult and painful assault on our Republic.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to add my accolades to the departing Member, a classmate of mine, who came in in the 105th Congress. The gentleman from Arkansas has served with distinction the Third Congressional District of Arkansas since his election. As Asa tells it, the folks back home in Arkansas were not too impressed about this DEA nomination, until they found out that he would be the head of 9,000 employees and have offices in over 50 countries, at which point they then thought it was kind of a big deal. Asa, of course, served with distinction on the Committee on the Judiciary, and, as some of you who worked with him knew, he was thrust into an interesting role with the impeachment matter. But he has also been a leader on other issues regarding the Federal Judiciary, whether it is regarding our forfeiture laws, whether it is racial profiling, or campaign finance. I think all of those issues, and the open mindedness that Asa brought to those issues, is one reason there was such a tremendous show of support, when every one of his colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle on the Committee on the Judiciary signed a letter of support to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, urging Asa's confirmation. I think that was a tremendous show of bipartisan support. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Asa, we simply say to you that as you continue your service to this great Nation, that we wish you and Susan and your family Godspeed. We all in this Chamber have been enriched by having known you, and we are luckier all the more for the fact that we have had a chance to work with you. We wish you well.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, as a Nation, we are fond of looking back over our country's relatively short history and commemorating noteworthy events. For instance, in a few short years, in 2004, our country will be celebrating the bicentennial anniversary of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Some will take that opportunity and look back with nostalgia and wistfully wish that we could turn the clock back and restore the great Missouri River to its natural condition of 200 years ago. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, some strong political activists, including the newly minted Senate majority leader, have been forcefully advocating for a change in the management of the Missouri River. These individuals or entities are pushing legislation insisting on manipulating higher water flows in the spring months, called a spring rise, and lower flows in the late summer. Now, environmentalists claim that such a controlled flood is necessary to accommodate two endangered and one threatened species. Those from the Upper Missouri River Basin, like the senior Senator from South Dakota, support this plan because it would help the multimillion dollar recreation industry. Members of this alliance have been reassuring Missourians all along that a controlled flood in the springtime will be no big deal, that somehow our concerns on the lower river basin are inconsequential or invalid. Well, Mr. Speaker, this arrogance is not just limited to interest groups outside of Washington. I contacted a high-level government official in mid-May regarding continued concerns about flooding, about economic devastation, and constituent safety. The reply I got from this government official: ``A spring rise will only result in some inconvenience.'' Well, apparently in the minds of some, the habitat of two birds and one fish take precedence over the homes of 22,500 families who live alongside the Missouri River Basin. I want to tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, what has happened over the last 2\1/2\ weeks. On June 1, the Missouri River was at 13 feet, which is normal. Due to heavy rainfall up-river on June the 8, 7 days later, the river stage was at an astounding 29 feet. That is a 16 foot rise in elevation a week. Now, for those of us unfamiliar with river towns or river terminology, flood stage is when a channel is full and damage begins to occur. So in these short 7 days, the Missouri River went from normal levels to 8 feet above flood stage. Now, fortunately not a lot of damage occurred because there is adequate structural flood protection that is built to withstand flows under the current management plan. But I shudder to think what would have happened if the proposed controlled flood plan had been in effect, because once the decision is made on the up-river to release water from those up-river reservoirs, it cannot be stopped, and it takes 8 to 10 days to finally get down to the point of the confluence at St. Louis. That man-made spring rise, coupled with the heavy rainfall we saw during this 7-day period provided by Mother Nature, would have been, in my estimation, economically devastating and potentially life- threatening. While the up-river recreation industry would have been congratulating themselves, shaking hands and heading off to the bank, Missourians would have been consoling themselves, holding hands, stranded on top of their rooftops. To those who would have us return to the romantic times of 1804, let me say that Missouri scientists and biologists from our own State Department of Natural Resources believe that a spring rise in the flow of the Missouri River would not improve the habitat restoration of the pallid sturgeon, of the least tern, and the piping plover. In fact, according to the Army Corps of Engineers, the cost to accommodate these three species through changing the management of the Missouri River system would be $1 billion over 20 years. We are already helping species restoration through effective and less costly mitigation efforts. In addition, if low-summer flows, the second component of this plan were instituted, commercial navigation would be severely interrupted not only in the Missouri River, but on the lower Mississippi River region, and hydroelectric power generation would be lost. Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of Members of this House in Congress have agreed with Missourians on this issue. In fact, they have been overwhelmingly with us over the past 5 years. In fact, I see my friend from Iowa here and I applaud his efforts today in the House Agricultural Committee on Appropriations which included an amendment that would restrict funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service if such spring rise and split navigation zones were implemented. I want to tell all of my colleagues in this House, Mr. Speaker, how deeply that we Missourians appreciate the support, especially because of recent developments in the Senate, and that we may need their undaunted courage in the very near future.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this very likely last tax relief measure in this Congress.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, in a few moments, I expect my colleague from Missouri, the Democratic leader, will be coming to the well of the House and closing on the Democratic alternative. I find it noteworthy that over the last 4 years we have had 12 occasions to debate a substantive tax relief measure, and these are the Congressional Records from those debates. I note that my colleague from Missouri, who is likely to join us in a few moments, has spoken in opposition on each and every occasion save one. My good friend from Missouri has never met a tax cut that he did not spike. I go back to the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, and we were in the midst of deficits. As we were debating as a body whether to create an education savings account, cutting the capital gains tax rates, putting into place the Roth IRA, here are the statements from my good friend from Missouri. Let me say this, and I am quoting from the Record, ``I am a tax reformer. I believe we ought to get less deductions and exemptions and special treatment. I think we need to get lower rates for everybody.'' Amen, I say, Mr. Speaker. Vote for H.R. 3. This is across-the-board relief, where the greatest reductions are going to those who pay in the lower income tax brackets. Let us fast-forward a year to 1998, as we were considering the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1998. On that occasion the gentleman from Missouri argued against the bill primarily because of his concern about raiding the Social Security Trust Fund. Again I go to the Record: ``I am from Missouri. We have a saying in Missouri. Show me. Show me the trust fund.'' Well, we took that comment to heart as well. I think that everyone in this Chamber recognizes that this Republican majority has locked away every penny of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds and payroll taxes. What we are talking about in this tax relief measure today is the overpayment of income tax surpluses. If the Chair would permit me one final example. As we were debating a year ago the tax relief measure, again I think the gentleman from Missouri, with his usual rhetorical flourish, came before us and cried foul about the Republican plan for tax relief, talking about needing to pay down the debt and pointing out that a family of four earning $50,000 a year would only receive a refund of about $250. Once again, we have taken those constructive comments to heart. We are making unprecedented progress on paying down the national debt. And when the President's tax plan is fully phased in, that working family of four making $50,000 a year, that the gentleman from Missouri defended so vigorously, they will see their tax bill reduced by $1,600 annually. I suppose through these congressional pages the arguments against tax relief are myriad and numerous. And I suppose my colleagues could conjure up any number of reasons to vote ``no.'' Here is a compelling reason to vote ``yes'': it is not the government's money. On behalf of hard-working American taxpayers, I join with our President in asking for a refund, urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Democratic alternative and ``yes'' on H.R. 3.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to override the President's veto. I am fortunate enough to represent 216 miles of river which includes the Mississippi but 86 miles of the Missouri River that forms the boundary in my district. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that Members of this body really would give some deference to this bipartisan coalition of Members in Missouri that do not support the Fish and Wildlife's position, that would urge an override of the President's veto, that is, this proposed spring rise. The section at issue is section 103 that simply says that none of the funds available in this energy and water bill would be available to revise the master manual to provide for an increase in the springtime water release during heavy spring rainfall and snow melt in States that have rivers that drain into the Missouri. As the chairman pointed out, this has been in the previous four out of the five spending bills that Congress has passed, the President has signed. It allows a range of different options but only prevents one specific harmful alternative and that is a controlled flood. I hope those that support the President's veto do not try to create this false choice between picking between the environment and picking between commerce. Clearly, commerce is affected. As the gentleman from Iowa mentioned before, navigation is extremely important. This affects the lower Mississippi River Valley as well. In fact, if this split navigation season had been in effect a year ago, it would have meant three feet of draft water difference in Memphis, Tennessee, which really does affect navigation along the lower Mississippi. But even on the environmental point of view, we have scientists in our State, our Missouri Department of Natural Resources, that opposes a spring rise. They say they are convinced that off-channel and nonflow-related mitigation and restoration efforts are the best ways to enhance habitat. They say that the Missouri River already has a natural spring rise hydrograph, yet we have not seen how certain species are flourishing and so they look at other options. Mr. Speaker, we can be environmentally friendly and still support this veto override. That is why our own State Department of Natural Resources believes that improvement projects can be done with the cooperation of adjacent landowners, that that will provide the best success. Let me just say that the Missouri River, we are very blessed as it is a natural resource that supports 60 species of mammals, 301 species of birds, 52 species of reptiles or amphibians, 156 species of fish. The President vetoed this bill because of two birds and one fish that are on the endangered species list. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that we would consider the habitat of the 22,500 homeowners that are located within the identifiable flood control area, flood plain area. I urge this body to override the President's veto.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, my response to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) would be that if the bias of an accused defendant is made relevant then would not the gentleman agree that any statements, any writings, any thoughts, any spray painted slurs, any of these constitutionally protected, although abhorrent statements, would then be part of the criminalization of the act?

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time to me and certainly appreciate the tenor of the debate, especially hearing the experiences of my friend, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and his experiences as a Federal prosecutor. Before coming to this body, I began my legal career as a court- appointed public defender, and one of the last cases I had the occasion to defend was a murder case. My client was an African American who was facing the death penalty. Shortly, thereafter I switched sides in a courtroom and began prosecuting criminal cases and handled some 16 death penalty cases throughout the State of Missouri. I have heard these very powerful testimonials from all Members, including my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri, who spoke at the beginning in favor of Mr. Conyers' motion. I, too, have held the hands of family members who have been murdered, the mothers and wives as we waited for juries to return with their verdicts, and wondering whether or not the State's cases prevail and often they did. But I agree also with the gentlewoman from Wisconsin. My experience has shown that all murder cases are hate crimes, and what I think we are attempting to do today is really legislate by headline. The fact that the tragedy that occurred to the Matthew Shephard family, the killers of Matthew Shephard deserve, in my estimation, the death penalty not because of who he is or what sexual preference he had, but because the facts fit the case. The murder of James Byrd down in Texas that has been referred to, his killers, in my estimation, deserve justice throughout the death penalty, not because of who he was or the color of his skin, but because the facts fit the case. In the earlier debate, and I was listening to my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) in the debate with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), if there are prosecutors or police across this Nation that are not aggressively enforcing existing law, then we should focus there, and yet I believe that as the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) mentioned, we are attempting in essence to criminalize abhorrent but lawful thought, and I think that is a step too far, especially having been one who served in State courts in Missouri. I think, Mr. Speaker, when I reference the criminal justice system and conjure up the image of all of those cases that I had the opportunity to participate in, I think of the Goddess of Justice. There is a statue just across the street depicting the Goddess of Justice and she stands there with scales in one hand and blindfold across her eyes, and I think the thought and the symbolism is that decisions that are made in our courtroom should be made not based on prejudice or not elevating one group over another, but should be applied consistently, and because of that, then I ask for a no vote on Mr. Conyers' motion.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, the question is a simple one, I say to my friend from New York (Mr. Rangel), should the death of a family member be a taxable event? Should the passing of one's mother or father who have worked hard to build a business to pass on to their descendants, should that event, that personal tragedy, should that be a taxable event? If my colleagues believe that it should be, then vote to sustain the veto of the President. If my colleagues think it should not be a tax event, then vote to override the President's veto. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) for yielding me some time, and I suspect that we are going to hear throughout this period of debate the weary class warfare argument from the defenders of the death tax, that this is a tax for the wealthy. Rather than get caught up in revenue projections and distribution tables and effective dates and whether we have an immediate tax relief or not in our prescription drugs, I would like to tell my colleagues briefly about a constituent family of mine, the Eiffert family. Howard Eiffert began a lumber business in 1965, with very little capital and through a lot of hard work has built a business, the Boone County Lumber Company, that now employs 30 full-time employees. His two sons, Greg and Brad, are looking forward to taking over that family business. Howard is now 66 years of age and hopes that he can pass that lumber business on to his sons who want to continue the business. But because the tax is still on the books, Greg and Brad Eiffert are required to pay $35,000 a year. Let me repeat that, Greg and Brad Eiffert, the sons of the founder of this business, are paying $35,000 a year in annual premiums for a life insurance policy, the sole source of which proceeds will be used to hopefully pay off the entirety of the tax bill when that estate, that business is passed to the next generation. Now, $35,000 a year could hire a very good full-time employee, not to mention the fact that if they do not pay this fee every year, that the death tax will require the closure of the business, which means, in addition to the loss of the property taxes and the payroll taxes and the income taxes that they already pay, the loss of 30 steady paychecks. I urge this body to vote to override the President's veto. Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that the House has to consider an override of the President's veto today. The President should have done the right thing and signed the bill to bury the Death Tax once and for all. Unfortunately, he didn't, and I rise to urge my colleagues to join me in voting to override the President's veto. We have heard the same-old, tired class-warfare rhetoric from the defenders of the Death Tax. We have heard that it only benefits the rich. My friends, your vote should be based on one question and one question alone--do you think that death should be a taxable event? Should death trigger a tax as high as 55 percent on a lifetime's worth of hard-work? My answer is no. That is why we should undue the harm done by the President's veto pen. We can talk about this issue in the context of revenue projections, distribution tables and effective dates. But I want to take a minute to tell you about the Eiffert family in Columbia, Missouri. In 1965, Howard Eiffert started Boone County Lumber Company. Today, his son Brad and Greg help run the business. Howard is now 66 years old and would like to pass the business on to his sons. But this isn't as easy as it seems. The Death Tax looms over this dream like a dark cloud. The Eifferts pay $35,000 a year in insurance premiums in preparation to pay the Death Tax when the day of Howard's passing comes. Howard and his sons Brad and Greg are the real faces of the so-called ``rich'' that supporters of keeping the Death Tax love to demonize. Keeping the Death Tax on the books is not fair. Fairness dictates that the Eiffert's hard-work should be rewarded, and the Boone County Lumber Company should continue into the next generation. The Eiffert's situation is but one example of why we should kill the Death Tax. This tax is inefficient. It kills jobs. It punishes those willing to take risks and allows the tax code to wreck a lifetime of hard-work. But most importantly, retaining the Death Tax is plain wrong. I know it, and the Eiffret family certainly knows it. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to override the President's ill-conceived veto.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, due to travel delays, I was not present for rollcall votes 373 through 378. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 373, ``no'' on rollcall vote 374, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 375, ``no'' on rollcall vote 376, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 377 and ``no'' on rollcall vote 378.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, talk is cheap. Prescription drugs are not. They are expensive and getting more expensive every day. Seniors need help now. The competing plans are alike in certain respects, monthly premiums, deductibles, out-of-pocket costs, taking care of low-income seniors; but I agree with the gentleman who just spoke that there are some philosophical differences between the two plans. In other words, shall seniors have a right to choose or shall America's seniors be forced to lose? That is what is at stake. Do we trust older Americans to be able to choose for themselves the prescription drug plans and let them keep the plans that they like? Or shall we force them into a take- it-or-leave-it approach? I think we should trust those in their golden years to make those decisions for themselves. We have seen health-run plans in other nations, and we have seen they have not worked. In Canada and England they are not on the cutting edge of having miracle drug therapies; or the fact that seniors cannot get prescription drugs, have their doctors prescribe them and then get those drugs as they need it. When Medicare began in 1965, the corner drugstore was the gathering place. People would sit around and catch up. Pharmacists would know a person's name, know their medical history. That has not changed even though the country has. Under our plan, that will not change, except that prescription medicines will be cheaper. I urge a yes vote on the bipartisan plan.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, let me commence by also commending the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee and add my kudos to those that have been mentioned previously and wish him well as he begins his next chapter. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to increase the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' general investigations account by $2 million. Funding for this amendment would be offset by a $2 million decrease in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' general expense account. The intent of this amendment is to provide the Corps with adequate funding to begin its initial study of the Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan. Now, Mr. Chairman, many Members who served this body back in 1993 and through 1995 remember the great flood, as we called it in the Midwest. The great flood of 1993 took 47 lives, left roughly 74,000 individuals homeless, and caused between $15 billion and $20 billion in damages. While existing flood control measures at the time did prevent nearly $19 billion in potential damages along the Upper Mississippi River Basin, an integrated flood control policy could have prevented further loss of life and property. The Upper Mississippi and Illinois River Valleys currently lack a coordinated approach to address navigation, flood control and environmental restoration. I would announce to the Chair that the comprehensive plan was authorized by section 459 of the Water Resources Development Act, otherwise known as WRDA 1999, and it would be the first to focus on developing and implementing a system for integrated river management. Specifically, the comprehensive plan will call for systemic flood control and flood damage reduction; continued maintenance and improvement of navigation; improved management of nutrients and sediment, including bank erosion; environmental stewardship and increased recreation opportunities in the Upper Mississippi and Illinois River Basins. The plan will be a collaborative effort among three core districts, specifically the St. Paul, Rock Island and Saint Louis Army Corps district offices; other Federal agencies, including the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, and of course my home State of Missouri, and a host of other non-Federal organizations. A task force will be created to guide and coordinate development of the plan. The plan will identify future management actions and make recommendations for systemic improvement of the river basin again to provide multiple benefits. Mr. Chairman, to comply with House rules, I again want to reiterate that the $2 million increase in the Corps' general investigations account should be used to fund this comprehensive plan. Recognizing that we were not trying to legislate on an appropriations bill, we crafted it such. It is my understanding that within the general investigations account that $2 million for the comprehensive plan should be designated under the Illinois subheading on page 13 of the committee report. One other point I would like for this body to consider is that WRDA 1999 gave the Army Corps of Engineers 3 years from its enactment to submit a project study on the comprehensive plan, and to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Mr. Chairman, WRDA 1999 was signed into law last August without adopting this amendment, this bipartisan amendment, I might add, cosponsored by my colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), with support from the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). Without adopting this amendment, the Corps will not have the financial resources to do as required by law. To conclude, I do want to remind my colleagues that the comprehensive plan enjoys bipartisan support. This is not the locks and dams study, as some have asked. This is completely offset. I, along with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), the co-chair of the Mississippi River Caucus, proposed this amendment along with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). The Mississippi River Caucus was formed back in 1997 with the expectation that those Members whose districts include and depend on the Mississippi River could work together in a bipartisan manner to help the Corps and those river stakeholders improve the Mississippi River system as a whole. This is exactly what the comprehensive plan would do, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. HULSHOF. Again, with all the great respect for the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), I consider him just that, a gentleman, in this body, were it not for the time limit on the authorization, and that is the clock is running on this authorized project and the fact that the Corps of Engineers is expected to report back in about a year and a half, I would accept the invitation of the gentleman, otherwise, I am afraid I am going to have to insist on my amendment.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I find it ironic that today as world scientists are heralding the breakthrough and mapping human genetics that the European Union remains in the dark ages regarding advancements in plant science. The European Union has demonstrated extreme reluctance in implementing an approval process for genetically enhanced foods. I think that this inaction will be prolonged by the recently announced consultative forum. As my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) has talked about America's farmers who have been struggling now for the 3rd consecutive year of depressed prices, but they are not the only ones that are going to be affected by the European Union's inaction. Around the world, 170 million preschool kids are undernourished. In Third World countries, ag biotechnology can help develop new varieties that will survive the harshest climates. These countries will not be able to undertake effective biotech research without the support, but, more importantly, without the consensus of developed countries. Besides fighting famine and besides caring for the world's growing population, genetic crop enhancement can also help environmental causes such as reduction of pesticide use, groundwater pollution and topsoil erosion. In short, as I agree with my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) that we would prefer the provision of the amendment be included in this year's appropriations bill. We also respect the rules of the House. Mr. Chairman, I do urge the administration to insist the U.S. participation and the forum be contingent on agreement by the European Union to restart its approval process. Mr. Chairman, let us fight hunger not biotechnology.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for yielding to me. As my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) the chairman of the Subcommittee VA, HUD and Independent Agencies knows, in a 6-hour time frame between May the 6 of this year and Sunday morning, May the 7, 15 inches of rain fell in parts of my district. As a result of some severe flash flooding, two lives were lost, over 200 of my constituents were left homeless and numerous businesses have suffered property damage. Recognizing the severity of these damages caused by the flooding, the President on May the 12 of this year designated three Missouri counties, Franklin County, Gasconade and Jefferson County as Federal disaster areas. Believing that a precedent had been set by Congress in their dealings with past disasters, the Mayor of the City of Washington, Missouri submitted to me a request for an appropriation that would permit their city to implement a flood buyout and relocation program. Though a specific line item was not used to secure relief for the victims of past floods, it is my understanding that a precedent was set by allowing money through the Housing and Urban Development's Community Development and Block Grants program to pay for buyouts, to pay for relocation and mitigation in communities in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota. While I certainly, Mr. Chairman, would prefer that more money be made available in the Community Development Block Grant program for the State of Missouri to pay for the buyout and relocation of businesses impacted by this flash flood, I do recognize the budgetary hardships that the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) has encountered in crafting this fiscal year 2001 bill. Mr. Chairman, I had considered offering an amendment to waive the Community Development Block Grant low- and moderate-income requirements for those areas affected by the major disaster that was the subject of this May 6 and 7 flood. However, I also recognize that the provisions of such a proposal would constitute legislating on an appropriations bill and would have been ruled out of order. Mr. Chairman, recognizing that at this point there is little that this body can do, I would ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) should an opportunity present itself to help those families and businesses that were severely impacted for him to look for that and grasp that opportunity on behalf of those families and businesses. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for his willingness to work with me to address this very critical and serious situation.