Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of a very special young woman. Tessa Vellek, who hails from my hometown of Columbia, MO, is only eleven years old, but has already accomplished a lifetime of charitable work. Tessa has created a highly successful charitable organization operated by children, known as Euphoria, because, as she stated, ``I wanted an organization where kids could decide how they wanted to help other people. I wanted the community to see that we aren't just followers, but a group of motivated youth seeking to make Columbia a better place.'' Among their many volunteering activities, Tessa and her friends have collected books for schools, shelters and hospitals, gathered food for the homeless and entertained seniors living in retirement communities.

Tessa was recently recognized for her efforts. Every year, Nestle honors outstanding young women and men for philanthropic activities in their local community. Out of 158 applicants, Nestle selects 24 young people for their Very Best in Youth award. This year, Nestle picked Tessa as one of the nation's Very Best in Youth. I could not be prouder of this young woman. Not only has she dedicated significant amounts of her free time to helping out those who are less fortunate, Tessa has also amassed an impressive academic record, including earning straight A's, receiving prestigious academic achievements and winning an award in the National PTA Reflections Essay Contest. I have no doubt she will be highly successful in whatever career she pursues, although a budding passion for literature and creative writing could lead her to become a novelist. These volunteering experiences will surely provide Tessa excellent material to draw from in her writing.

After seeing the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, Tessa organized a Ride/Walk fundraising event in Columbia to help those in the Gulf Coast affected by the hurricane. Nestle generously agreed to match whatever funds were raised. Out of the $210,000 raised nationwide, Tessa and her Ride/Walk event netted $71,000. The combined $420,000 has been donated to the American Red Cross Hurricane Katrina Relief Fund, which has been invaluable to aiding the plight of storm victims. I am always amazed at the generosity, benevolence and leadership of to day's youth. With people like Tessa and the other Nestle youth recipients, I strongly believe the future of our nation is in good hands.

I hope my colleagues share in my admiration of Tessa's good works and encourage all Americans to follow this fine young woman's lead and get involved with chritable works in communities and neighborhoods across our great land.

Mr. Speaker, today, senior citizens across America can sign up for the new Medicare prescription drug benefit that will save them money on medicines that they need. Many are concerned that the program with its many choices is too confusing, not to mention the mixed signals being sent by this House. Health care can be complicated, but saving money on prescription drugs that senior citizens need should not be. We have a responsibility to help seniors save money, not scare them away from these critical new benefits.

Back in 1966, many people thought that the original Medicare hospital insurance plan was too confusing. Then, as now, volunteers were trying to help seniors enroll, even going door to door. Back in 1966, not all seniors answered the door; and as a result, millions failed to enroll in the first round of benefits before the initial sign-up window had closed. ``I think the problems ahead will be vast,'' said Democrat Senator Abraham Ribicoff in the spring of 1966. ``The encouraging fact,'' he added, ``is a willingness to cooperate, despite the earlier strong opposition to Medicare, to make it work. I am sure it will,'' he said.

I share Senator Ribicoff's optimism. Older Americans have flooded the Medicare hotline and Web site, and they are attending workshops in America's senior centers in large numbers.

It is natural for many seniors to have questions. I urge this House to help our constituents deal with this new benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday next; and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 25, 2005, for morning hour debates.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim my time for my Special Order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise and have the privilege perhaps on a lighter note to report the outcome of the seventh annual Hoops For Hope basketball game between Washington, D.C.'s elite lobbyists and Members of Congress. Perhaps the broad smile on my face or the gleaming hardware to my left might provide some clues as to the outcome of last night's contest.

Seven years ago, Paul Miller of the American League of Lobbyists hit upon the idea that perhaps lobbyists and Members of Congress could move away from the political arena and actually have a contest on the court. While I will report to my colleagues the games have been intensely competitive, the game has had a more noble purpose, and that is to raise money for kids in the inner city of Washington, D.C.

Last night, through the generosity of a lot of people, we raised $50,000 from just last night's event, bringing the running total of these several contests to over $200,000. Again, there were a lot of people that deserve a lot of credit for helping make that event a success.

Certainly our former colleague, Jack Quinn of New York, who, of course, now has gone over to the lobbyists side. When Jack Quinn was a colleague here and was our coach, he had an undefeated record. Unfortunately, his former colleagues last night marred that record and gave him a defeat; but, again, I appreciate all the work that Jack did, that Paul Miller did.

George Washington University was very gracious in hosting the event yet again.

I would also like to talk about someone who donated his time, that is, Missouri men's basketball coach Quin Snyder, who is a personal friend who accepted my invitation to come, who came at his own expense, at his own effort, to prowl the sidelines to give some guidance for us. The game got a little close in the waning moments, and it was his presence on the sidelines, maybe working the officials just a little bit, but I really appreciate my friend Quin coming here to Washington, D.C. again for this purpose, his executive assistant Donna, as well as my own executive assistant Eileen, who helped work on the logistics.

Finally, this was a bipartisan, bicameral team. When you think that, on paper at least, the universe of lobbyists is about 10,000, and of course, House Members and Senators, there are only 535 of us from which to draw this team, we really on paper should not even be on the same court with these lobbyists; and, nonetheless, thanks to Senators Ensign and Thune, thanks to my colleagues here in the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), we happened to have a winning margin in the double digits. The final score was 44 to 33; and yet the real winners are the kids from the inner city D.C. area who are the beneficiaries of the proceeds that we raised.

We had a chance at half-time to personally interact with dozens of these kids. Again, this is a community effort to provide a solution for some kids growing up in some really tough circumstances. So they are the real winners of last night's contest; but even as they are the beneficiaries of those proceeds, we will proudly hang on to this gleaming hardware for yet another year.

I thank the Chair for allowing me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement, DR-CAFTA, as it will level the playing field for American manufacturers and farmers. The six DR-CAFTA countries, which include the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras, have had preferential access to U.S. markets for approximately 20 years as a result of the Caribbean Basin Initiative, CBI, and the Generalized System of Preferences, GSP, program. Consequently, DR-CAFTA countries have enjoyed a ``one-way street'' of market access where by 80 percent of goods and almost 99 percent of agricultural products enter duty free. Conversely, American exporters have faced tariffs on almost all of the goods exported to the region.

It is vital to my home State of Missouri that we continue to expand and open new markets for American farm products. In 2003, 25 percent of Missouri's $5 billion farm cash receipts were attributable to foreign trade. Half of all soybeans and 1 in 5 rows of corn grown in Missouri are destined for foreign markets. Absent DR-CAFTA, American farm exports will

continue being subject to tariffs ranging from 35 percent to 60 percent. This puts our farmers and ranchers at a significant competitive disadvantage with our international competitors in these growing markets. It would be foolish to turn our backs on an agreement that removes these sort of punitive barriers to our products. If we pass DR-CAFTA, we will open the doors to six countries where the potential U.S. gain for all agricultural exports is expected to reach $1.5 billion. Put another way, this would mean a near doubling of the U.S. agricultural sales to the region when compared to 2003 levels.

It is for this reason that DR-CAFTA enjoys the strong support of the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Soybean Association, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Pork Producers Council, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the USA Rice Federation, the National Association of Wheat Growers and the National Milk Producers Federation, just to name a few. To borrow from Farm Bureau, a vote for DR-CAFTA is a vote for agriculture.

There are many critics who erroneously believe that by ratifying DR- CAFTA, the United States is relinquishing our national sovereignty and opening our borders to floods of immigrants. On the contrary, nothing in the DR-CAFTA will preempt the Constitution, current U.S. laws and our sovereignty. Should a contradiction arise between the terms of DR- CAFTA and U.S. law, the U.S. will maintain its right to change domestic laws as it sees fit.

Moreover, enactment of DR-CAFTA will have no effect on current immigration laws. Congress will maintain its role in crafting U.S. immigration policy. And in fact, DR-CAFTA will help reduce illegal immigration. As the economic opportunities that accompany free market reforms take a stronger hold in Central America, residents of these nations will have a stake in their future and a strong fiscal incentive to remain in their native country.

DR-CAFTA is in our national security interests. Our foreign policy must promote stability and prosperity in Central America. As we saw in the 1980's, instability can give nations who do not share our interests an opportunity to expand their influence in our hemisphere. To promote stability, we should reward democracies that respect human rights and encourage free market economic principles. DR-CAFTA is consistent with this goal. As these evolving democracies continue to grow, we will see their economic viability strengthened, thereby creating jobs and reducing poverty.

Some have expressed concern that DR-CAFTA will weaken labor laws, leaving workers in this region without basic protections. This is simply not true. The International Labor Organization (ILO) has reviewed the labor laws and practices of the six DR-CAFTA countries and found them largely in compliance with the ILO's eight core conventions. With the exception of El Salvador--which has ratified six--every other nation covered by DR-CAFTA has enacted the eight core conventions. In fact, if you look at the labor provisions of other recently enacted free trade agreements, such as the Jordan and Morocco agreements, you will find that the DR-CAFTA labor provisions are more stringent and ensure greater protections for workers.

Over 95 percent of the world's consumers live outside our borders, and it is in our best interests to pursue a policy that opens these markets to American products. If we fail, we forfeit these markets-- both from an economic and national security standpoint--to our international competitors in Asia and Europe.

DR-CAFTA will level the playing field for American farmers and manufacturers and help address an important national security goal. This is a win-win situation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital agreement.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise to speak in favor of this long overdue Water Resources Development Act and to applaud the chairman and ranking member for bringing it to the floor, but specifically to speak strongly in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleagues, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I grew up in the shadow of the levees along the Mississippi River that protect the fertile farm land in southeast Missouri and delivered grain from our family's farm to barge terminals; and those extra cents per bushel have helped keep food on our table and keep that family farm within our family.

I am presently privileged to represent Missouri's ninth district which includes about 120 miles of the Mississippi, four of the locks in question, several important environmental projects, including mitigation and habitat restoration. Let me echo what the gentleman who just spoke, my friend from Arkansas, said, that it is a little bit frustrating for those of us who know and understand and appreciate the character and the many facets of the Mississippi River to deal with an amendment that has been offered by those whose personal knowledge of locks and dams is a seat on a plane 30,000 feet above these very structures which maintain the navigable waterway of the Mississippi River.

When the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) was a signatory to a letter to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) back in March of 2004 urging a line item appropriation to dredge the Columbia River channel from 40 to 43 feet, I did not object because the gentleman should know his own district and how it affects his infrastructure in his area.

Let me just address some of the concerns that have been raised by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). First of all, I have been hearing that this amendment by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is a compromise.

The underlying bill is a compromise. There are 29 locks and dams on the upper Mississippi River. We are talking about modernizing five of those locks on the upper Mississippi along with two on the Illinois River.

We have heard the discussion about this being a costly boondoggle, that the cost-benefit analysis does not justify modernization of locks and dams. Here are some facts. First of all, I did not hear from the gentleman offering the amendment that we should have a cost-benefit analysis for the environmental restoration portion of the bill. Secondly, as the chairman pointed out in his opening remarks, $900 million, half of the cost of modernizing the locks and dams, is already being borne by the barge owners and operators with this 20-cent-per- fuel excise tax that is now going into the Inland Waterway Trust Fund.

What is interesting, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that 40 percent of the funds in that trust fund have been placed there by the upper Mississippi barge owners and operators, and yet only about 15 percent of the trust fund is used on projects that help those operators on the upper Mississippi.

It is not the first time those of us in the Midwest helped subsidize infrastructure across the country. Highway 89 that cuts through the gentleman from Arizona's (Mr. Flake) district, those of us in the Midwest helped subsidize the maintenance of that highway.

Just as the light rail project the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has pushed for, about 48 cents out of a dollar is borne by the passengers of the light rail system. We pick up the rest of the cost. I think that is appropriate just as the users of the upper Mississippi are paying for half the cost.

Let me say on the issue of traffic decreasing, because the gentleman talked about the $900 million that has been invested in modernization already. Even with those investments, these 1930s facilities, we are losing 10 percent a year and have for the last 10 years, 10 percent reliability. And so the fact is if a project is broken, it is time to fix it. You do not wait to see if it gets better.

Traffic has been increasing on the inland waterway system everywhere except in the upper Mississippi because of the declining condition of these locks and dams. It is time we modernize them.

I urge a vote for the water bill and a strong vote ``no'' against the Flake-Blumenauer amendment.

I thank the gentleman for bringing forth a WRDA bill that balances all needs. I also want to thank both Chairman Young and Chairman Duncan for honoring my request and including the modernization of seven locks on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway in this legislation.

I urge all members to support the modernization of these locks and oppose the Flake-Blumenauer amendment that would ensure that the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers remain gravel roads in a world filled with interstates.

No one would say that our Nation's trucks should transport materials on roads built in the 1930s. But we are forcing the barges on the Mississippi River to use locks built in that far-gone era. Doing so limits our access to export markets and increases the load on our already over-burdened road and rail system.

Today we will hear supporters of this amendment say that river traffic has decreased; this is true but is very misleading. Barge traffic has decreased only in the section of river that contains these woefully outdated and undersized locks. When you look at stretches of the river that are unencumbered by 1930's technology, barge traffic is increasing.

Why? Because this section is plagued by delays and unscheduled maintenance closures, in fact, the capacity of the system is decreasing by 10 percent per year because of these closures. Thus, shippers are forced to stay away from this section of the river and

must use road or rail to transport their crops. Doing so increases transportation costs by almost 30 percent.

When something is broke you don't wait to see if it will get better on its own, you fix it before the problem gets worse. Yet Congressmen Flake and Blumenauer publicly say they want to wait and see if the situation improves. In reality they are using these costly lock delays and the shippers' regrettable but understandable lack of confidence in 1930's technology to achieve their goal of eliminating this project, saying, ``If they come we might build it.''

Additionally, the Flake-Blumenauer amendment contains no exceptions for droughts, floods or other factors outside of anyone's control that could impact the amount of cargo transported during their three-year window. Quite frankly, acts of God should not preclude us from helping farmers secure export markets.

Nor should we be forced to justify this project during a very small window of time; we need to look long term. The long-term effects of inaction more than justify the project. If we allow the delays at our outdated locks to continue, farmers will lose $562 million per year, the Nation would lose more than 20,000 jobs and our trade deficit will increase by $264 million. Moreover, corn exports will be decreased by 68 million bushels per year, soybean exports by 10 million per year, all before the year 2020.

And every day we delay is a day where more cargo is taken off of the river and put on trucks and rails. These are dangerous options for all Americans, dangerous to the driving public because every tow and barge that is taken off the river is replaced by 870 trucks on our highways, increasing the likelihood of accidents by 5,967 percent. And dangerous for the shipper because every barge is replaced by 225 rail cars that even the rail industry says it does not have, creating a situation where farmers will be able to grow crops and even sell crops but never be able to ship these crops.

If you support trade, providing farmers access to as many markets as possible and oppose adding 4 million semi trucks to our overcrowded roads, come join me and the American Farm Bureau, the Carpenters Union, the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, the National Corn Growers, and the American Soybean Association--to name a few--in our opposition to the Flake-Blumenauer Amendment.

Mr. Chairman, to my friend from Oregon I would personally invite him to come out and view these. Some of these locks, built, again, Mr. Chairman, in the 1930s, are standing just out of habit, with bailing wire and duct tape. And the Corps of Engineers has done a magnificent job.

Here is the reason, which I did not get to address earlier as far as the trigger that is in the gentleman's amendment. The trigger, the tonnage requirement the gentleman has in his amendment, does not take into account, for instance, the weather. A year ago, because of high water, the river was shut down as far as barge navigation. In low-water years, barges can only fill halfway, for instance.

So by putting this trigger mechanism in place, it does not take into account the many variables like weather, like the failure of one of the locks, which I did share with the gentleman, a bad harvest year, fluctuating market prices that may mean farmers choose to store their grain rather than ship their grain.

Again, I certainly acknowledge the intent with which the gentleman is bringing this amendment; but, again, because of the age of these locks and dams, it is time for modernization.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

In the remaining time, first of all, to my friend from Arizona, this is an authorization, not an appropriation. Half of the cost is going to be borne by those that use it, $900 million from the inland waterway trust fund. To my friend from Oregon, the trends on the inland waterway system have gone up except in this area where the locks and dams are crumbling because we are losing the reliability of these antiquated structures that were built in the 1930s with a 50-year useful life. And would they put the same sort of requirement on our national highway system?

The fact is that the Inland Waterway Structure and these locks and dams on the Upper Mississippi do have national significance. That is why we must modernize them and reject this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, since its beginnings in Ancient Egypt and the first Olympic Games in Greece, boxing has evolved into a multifaceted sport and industry spanning the globe. Figures such as Jack Dempsey, Rocky Marciano and Muhammad Ali have captivated the American public and become icons in our sports culture.

Mr. Speaker, the City of Moberly, Missouri, located in my district, holds a unique place in boxing's rich history, and I rise today in recognition of that history.

There are few names that are as synonymous with boxing as Jack Dempsey, who rose to greatness as a heavyweight prizefighter in the 1920s. After becoming the world heavyweight champion, Dempsey made an appearance in Moberly in 1922.

While training for bouts in 1917, Jack Dempsey approached Jacob Golomb, a small New York sporting goods retailer and manufacturer, and asked if he could make protective headgear for sparring. Golomb fulfilled that request and cemented his role in boxing, as his company, Everlast, would become the premier manufacturer of boxing gloves, equipment and apparel. When Dempsey won the heavyweight title, he sported Everlast gloves and shorts. Since then, the list of acclaimed fighters who have donned Everlast gear is too numerous to list here.

Although headquartered in New York City, Everlast's production facilities are today located in Moberly, Missouri. John Ratzenberger's Made in America, a TV show on the Travel Channel, recently produced a segment on the Everlast plant in Moberly. Ratzenberger visited the 300,000 square foot facility and learned how boxing gloves are made and a little about what it takes to be a fighter. If you have not seen this episode or the Made in America series, I would highly recommend it.

From hosting high-profile boxing events in the 1920's to making the gear that outfits today's champions, the city of Moberly is rightfully proud of its boxing heritage and the important role it plays in boxing today. For this reason, I rise to recognize Moberly's valuable contribution to the sport of boxing and to bring this to the attention of my colleagues.

Madam Speaker, I rise and ask my colleagues in the House to support this resolution. In addition to the kind words that already have been mentioned, FarmHouse had a unique, but a humble, beginning in my home town of Columbia, Missouri.

Like many social organizations at the University of Missouri campus, there were few students back in 1905 to draw from for its members. Its purpose, its objective back then was really not clearly defined or understood. And so it attracted little attention. It was not the result of any sort of a crisis among ag students, but was rather the result of a need for recognition of a small and subordinate and specialized group in the area of higher education.

The University of Missouri College of Agriculture was established back in 1870 as part of the land grant system. A lot of my colleagues here still to this day defend mightily the land grant system. It was a small division of the ag school back in 1905 within the University of Missouri. There were less than 100 students. It was not really held in the same high regard or high esteem as the school of law or the school of medicine, and most of those students were all farm-reared boys.

But a rather close relationship developed among this group of 35, a lot of them attended the same class, everyone knew each other, and there developed among them this sense of camaraderie. So as an outgrowth of this fellowship and the friendships that were formed, there were three men, D. Howard Doane, Henry P. Rusk and Earl Rusk, who conceived this idea of forming an agricultural club in order to perpetuate this congenial association.

In fact, as history has it, at least as we tell it, they began to have this discussion on a Sunday afternoon at a YMCA Bible meeting. So it was desirable that they were going to make this group, and they proposed to rent a house and live together, and this was in the spring of 1905.

And from the diary of Mr. Doane comes the following record: ``At the close of my freshman year, there was organized a club of farmers, principally from the freshman class, to run a clubhouse to be known as the FarmHouse. When school opened in September, only seven of the group returned.''

I mentioned Mr. Doane and the two brothers Rusk, and the others that joined them were Robert F. Howard, Claude B. Hutchison, Henry H. Krusekopf, and Melvin E. Sherwin.

Back now to Mr. Doane's diary: ``They took the house on their hands and turned it into a regular rooming and boarding house. Those seven fellows were the best bunch that ever got together. During the whole year they managed the house without one single disagreeable incident.''

I am tempted to go into a parenthetical aside regarding this body, but I will choose not to do that. And then finally from Mr. Doane's diary: ``Many a night this dear old bunch assembled with gravest doubts assailing them and wondering if it was all worth while.''

Well, Mr. Doane, in the humble opinion of this FarmHouse alum, it was indeed worthwhile. Thirty chapters across the country, including Canada, with a list of notable alumni, including just a smattering of those: former Kansas Governor, John Carlin; George Beadle, who received a Noble Prize in medicine and genetics back in 1958; Pulitzer Prize winner Ezra George Thiem; and Hall of Fame athletes Ed Widseth from Minnesota and legendary Missouri Coach Don Faurot; 49 past national FFA officers; one former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture; and entertainers Leroy Van Dyke, Michael Martin Murphey, and Pat Green.

More than 24,000 men have become members of FarmHouse Fraternity. And while the others do not necessarily hold a title, each has made his own mark within the community and the family in which they live, putting into action the FarmHouse motto: ``Builder of Men.''

I was honored to be invited to speak to an event back in Columbia, Missouri, over 530 participants, back in April of this year. And I would ask that this body, that the House of Representatives today recognize the 100th anniversary of FarmHouse Fraternity and commend the fraternity and its members for a century of service.

Miss McMORRIS. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on May 19, 2005, during consideration of H.R. 2361 the Fiscal Year 2006 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, I inadvertently recorded my vote as ``No'' on the amendment offered by Mr. Beauprez to increase funding for Wildland Management (Rollcall Vote No. 195). It was my intent to record my vote as ``Aye'' on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on May 20th, East Central College in Union, Missouri will watch with pride as young men and women receive their diploma and enter the working world. Commencement is a joyous time filled with celebrations and happiness, but also sadness and trepidation as students begin their adult lives and careers in new cities, often leaving friends behind.

East Central College's upcoming graduation will be no different. There will, however, be one major difference from previous graduations--it will mark the last time that Dr. Karen Herzog presides over her students in her official capacity as the college's President.

As such, I rise today to honor Dr. Karen Herzog for her distinguished academic career and commitment to higher education. Dr. Herzog grew up in Carthage, Missouri and studied at Ozark Christian College in nearby Joplin where she earned a B.A. in literature. She subsequently earned a master's degree in American literature from Kansas State University and later a Ph.D. in higher education policy from the University of Kansas.

Dr. Herzog started her academic career at the Metropolitan Community College District system located in the greater Kansas City area where she taught English. After fifteen years, Dr. Herzog moved into an administrative role at the college. She rose through the ranks and eventually assumed the position of Associate Vice Chancellor of Education. In 1999, East Central College offered Dr. Herzog the Presidency, which she accepted.

For the past six years, Dr. Herzog has made an indelible mark on the students of East Central College and residents of Franklin County. She has chaired the Franklin County Economic Development Council and been a member of the Franklin County Family and Children Mental Health Board, the Washington 353 Redevelopment Corporation and the Union Rotary Club. While at East Central, Dr. Herzog established a centralized Learning Center for students, earned full ten-year accreditation from the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and attained record enrollment levels. Dr. Herzog has clearly had a positive impact on the community, on East Central College, and most importantly, on the students that have received a quality education as a result of her efforts.

It has been a pleasure working with Dr. Herzog and I wish her continued success in her future endeavors. Her dedication to Missouri's students is exemplary and deserving of commendation. For these reasons, it is my pleasure to rise and share her accomplishments with my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I rise, gratefully, in support of this resolution, and applaud you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing it to come to the floor for consideration.

My colleagues, there are those beyond this venerable hall who would hope that this body would erupt in partisan ethical warfare. There may even be a handful of colleagues who have threatened ethical retaliation against another Member on the other side. There are others that, with tonight's vote, will try to claim some moral or ethical superiority because of the vote; and still others who will continue to seek some political advantage by taking the alleged improprieties of one Member and trying to tarnish the rest of that Member's party.

To those that I have described, you need not heed my words. But for the vast majority of my colleagues that I have not described, that are fair and decent and honorable and honest, I say to you, we need a functioning ethics process. Matter of fact, let me rephrase that. This institution requires a credible ethics process. The American public deserves that credible ethics process.

The integrity of this institution is at stake. The memory of those who have served, those that are going to come after us who serve, this resolution sets us back on the correct path. I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 202, I call up the bill (H.R. 8) to make the repeal of the estate tax permanent, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. 8.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that we are here today poised to pass H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005.

On behalf of the lead Democratic sponsor, my colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), as well as the over 200 bipartisan Members who have co-sponsored this bill, I am pleased that we are poised to pass in this body this commonsense legislation.

I would like to talk about a couple of constituents, particularly a constituent named Howard Effert who is a resident of Columbia, Missouri, who in 1965 began a lumber yard business there in Columbia. He contributed $100, which was a very modest contribution, as he had three young children to provide for with a modest wage.

He had the idea and a desire for a new venture even though many within the community felt this venture would be unsuccessful, but yet his partners helped him provide the financial assistance and of course some valuable mentoring to help him open the doors to this lumber business.

Fast forward now 40 years. His two sons, Brad and Greg, are running the day-to-day operations of the business. Of course, they want this family business that has been in their family since its modest beginnings in 1965 to be able to be passed on pursuant to the American Dream, that is, to create a legacy, to help your children be better off than you were.

Yet the Effert family today, Mr. Speaker, has to write a check for $1,000 a week, $52,036 to be precise, to purchase a term life insurance policy, the proceeds of which will be to pay the Federal Government on that inevitable day that Howard Effert passes from this world to the next.

In 2001 we passed historic legislation that let all income tax payers keep a little bit more of what they earned, and this historic legislation included a repeal of the Federal death tax which was a top tax priority for a lot of small business and family farm groups. Thus under current law, the death tax is gradually phased out between now and 2010. This is accomplished by increasing the exemption from the tax. Currently it is $1.5 million shielded from this very confiscatory tax, and at the same time we chip away at that top rate, which was as high as 55 percent, and in fact, in a few isolated instances as high as 60 percent tax. We now chip that away, and it is currently 47 percent.

Unfortunately, as we know, the death tax does not stay dead and buried. As things now stand, it will rise from the grave in 2011, and it will revert to its form prior to 2001. Now, this quirk in the law can be directly attributed to the Senate's Byrd Rule, which applies to the consideration of reconciliation bills.

As a matter of basic fairness, we must permanently repeal the death tax. The death of a family member quite simply should not be a taxable event. And if it was good policy when we enacted it in 2001, it remains a good idea today.

Let me touch briefly on some policy rationales for finishing this unfinished work. The death tax is fundamentally unfair. By its very structure, the tax punishes thrift, savings, and hard work. Conversely, the tax forces taxpayers to engage in a host of economically inefficient activities to avoid the very punitive nature of the tax. Not only does this have a very real effect on taxpayers and their behavior but a negative impact on the economy.

With a tax like the death tax, a family business or farm has no choice but to divert these precious resources, as in the case of the Effert family, to plan financially for the financial impact for the tax: money that could be used to expand the business, to purchase a forklift, to bring another person on the payroll, whatever is in the best interest of that business. Instead, this money is diverted in anticipation of this very punitive tax.

Now, supporters of retaining the death tax will claim that perhaps redistribution of income promotes economic fairness and social responsibility. We will get to have that debate. I respectfully disagree. Instead of rewarding savings and investment, this tax actually rewards those who spend lavishly and leave no ongoing business interest or assets to the next generation.

I am mindful of the bumper sticker that I saw recently traveling Missouri's highways on a big recreational vehicle that says ``I am spending my children's inheritance.''

If you wanted to give some good estate tax advice to someone that has put together some assets to pass along, it would be simply to consume it. Yet as we talk about some sort of tax reform and perhaps a consumption tax, this tax actually focuses on non-consumption and on thrift and savings.

For that and for a variety of reasons, we will have the opportunity, I hope, in a good debate, in a civil discourse. I think we should permanently repeal the death tax. We should enact H.R. 8.

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

Mr. Speaker, a lot of individuals have worked on H.R. 8, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), one of those individuals.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I am sure the gentleman from Michigan misspoke, and I am certain it was inadvertent. The bill, H.R. 8, actually does allow for a step up in basis of $3 million for a surviving spouse and another $1.3 million for surviving heirs.

If the intent of the legislation, which it is, is to help family businesses be passed from one generation to the next and the surviving heirs choose not to farm or continue the family business, then they are the ones making the taxable decision to dispose of assets that would be subject to a 15 percent capital gains rate but certainly not the 45 percent estate tax.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Missouri (Mr. Blunt) a colleague of mine, the majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, among the many groups that support H.R. 8, including the National Federation of Independent Business, which is the voice of small business, there are many minority owners of small businesses that also support complete repeal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) as he mentions Iraq and Afghanistan that the budgetary impact of H.R. 8 is really not felt until the year 2011 and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris).

(Ms. HARRIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect my friend from Tennessee and I trust he will bring that passion to the floor when we have our discussion on our spending bills.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), a newly elected Member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), my cosponsor of H.R. 8.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

(Mr. AKIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate in large measure the tone of the debate. What I would say to the gentlewoman who just spoke and to others who raised the red herring of Social Security is to remind folks, first of all, the Federal receipts from the Federal death tax represent less than 1.5 percent of all revenues, first of all; and, secondly, that none of the income tax money generated from the estate tax goes to Social Security for the trust funds, and eliminating the tax in no way will affect or impact current Social Security benefits. Not one bit.

Now, I do want to respond. I heard, I think, the gentleman from Massachusetts earlier say that really there has been no policy justification for keeping this tax, other than we need the money. In fact, I think one gentleman said something, from Massachusetts, about we need to pay our fair share.

Well, let me just ask you to consider your day. When you woke up this morning, if you hit the snooze button on your electric alarm clock, you are paying an electric tax. When you jumped into the shower this morning, you paid a water tax. If you saw the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) and I on C-SPAN debating this issue this morning, you are paying a cable TV tax. When you drove to work this morning, you are paying a gasoline tax. If you stopped for a cup of coffee, you paid a sales tax. If you used the telephone at all today, you are paying a telephone tax. And, of course, when you are at work, your wages are subject to a payroll tax that does go into Social Security, payroll taxes that do pay for Medicare, not to mention your income taxes. If you drive home to your home and you are lucky enough and fortunate enough to own a home, you are probably paying a local property tax.

When you kiss your spouse good night, you think that is free. No, leave it to the Federal Government to continue to have this thing called the marriage tax.

And, yes, if you scrape and invest and save and you build a family business, have the audacity to pursue the American dream, the Federal Government is there with its hand out saying give us 45 percent of the value of your family business.

Now I have heard from my colleagues on the other side who say that family farms are not affected. Well, then let me tell you a very quick personal story, a story of a farm family in Missouri, a young married couple who in 1956 left Portageville, Missouri, in the district of the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), with $1,000 in their pocket, and that was going to be the stake that they had. It happened that the woman was an expectant mother with her first child and, as it turned out, her only child.

That married couple happened to be my parents, and over the last 2\1/ 2\ years I have had the unfortunate reality that obviously death is inevitable, and I have had the unfortunate experience in our family of having both my father pass away in late 2002 and my mother one year ago.

I do not mind sharing with you, a 514 acre farm, a modest life insurance policy, the house that I grew up in, a combine, three tractors and some irrigation equipment, and that is it. And I am sitting across the mahogany desk from our long-time family accountant with the adding machine with a tape on it, and he is plugging in an arbitrary value for these assets that my parents invested their soul into. And I am breaking out into a cold sweat wondering whether or not this business that they built and wanted to pass on is going to fall above an arbitrary line or below an arbitrary line that we in Congress have set.

Now we did not have to pay the tax, but 14 days ago I had the requirement of filling out the form and paying the $2,000 accountant fee; and, again, I do not quarrel with that. But, Mr. Speaker, the death of a family member should not be a taxable event, period.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 8.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, just a quick comment for whatever time I may consume before yielding to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Did I hear the last speaker correctly, that we have given away, whose money is that? It would be the American taxpayers' money, who are probably, even as we speak, trying to grapple with those forms as they have tax day coming, as the income tax payers of America that provide for the comfortable living that he and I enjoy.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, and of course, as we have had a lot of unforeseen circumstances that have occurred, as was mentioned earlier, Iraq and Afghanistan. And let us hope and pray that as permanent repeal occurs, if it occurs, in the outyears that we will not be in that war on terrorism. But I would say to my friend, and I appreciate the question, but he also mentioned the Department of Agriculture, and lest, Mr. Speaker, anyone wonder who those agricultural groups are that represent farm families across America, I would place into the Record a letter from said groups.

In essence, the letter reads as follows: The groups listed below support permanent estate tax repeal, ask for this body to vote for H.R. 8, and the letter goes on to say, individuals and families own virtually all of the farms and ranches that dot America's rural landscape. Death taxes threaten the transfer of these operations to the next generation of food and fiber producers. Sincerely, Alabama Farmers Federation, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Sheep Industry Association, the American Soybean Association, Farm Credit Council, National Association of Wheat Growers; to my friend from North Dakota, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council, National Grain Sorghum Producers, National Milk Producers Federation, National Potato Council, USA Rice Producers Federation, U.S. Rice Producers Association, and the Western Peanut Growers Association.

April 13, 2005.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: The groups listed below support

permanent estate tax repeal and ask you to vote for H.R. 8,

the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005.

Individuals and families own virtually all of the farms and

ranches that dot America's rural landscape. Death taxes

threaten the transfer of these operations to the next

generation of food and fiber producers.

In 2001, Congress recognized the harm that death taxes

cause family businesses and voted to repeal this onerous tax.

Unfortunately, repeal scheduled for 2010 is temporary and

sunsets after only one year.

Congress should act now to make death tax repeal permanent.

Please show your support for permanent death tax repeal by

voting for H.R. 8 when the bill reaches the House floor this

week.

Sincerely,

Alabama Farmers Federation, American Farm Bureau

Federation, American Sheep Industry Association,

American Soybean Association, Farm Credit Council,

National Association of Wheat Growers, National

Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Corn Growers

Association, National Cotton Council, National Grain

Sorghum Producers, National Milk Producers Federation,

National Potato Council, USA Rice Federation, US Rice

Producers Association, Western Peanut Growers

Association.

Mr. Speaker, to my friend from South Carolina, I am not sure if any of those groups happen to represent farm families in his district, but I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman just indicated that the Pomeroy substitute solves the problem once and for all, and I have listened to a number of individuals on the other side during the course of this discussion that this is only going to affect the superwealthy and that really there are no family businesses that are affected by the estate tax. It has been interesting, because some of those comments have come from colleagues of mine on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a number of hearings going back to at least, from my memory, 1997. So I will mention some of these folks who have come and testified in front of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Martin Whalen testified about his family-owned and -operated company, Etline Foods Corporation, a distributor of food service products in York, Pennsylvania. When they purchased the business, 48 employees; in 1997, 105 employees. Rhetorically, I would say to my friend from North Dakota, will this solve their problem?

Wayne Nelson, a farmer from Winner, South Dakota. His father farmed until his father's death in 1993. Their estate planning was inadequate. Several parcels of land in South Dakota were liquidated in order to pay the Federal tax. Will the substitute rectify that situation?

What about Roger Hannay of Hannay Reels, Incorporated, a small manufacturer in the foothills of the Catskill Mountains about 25 miles from Albany, New York, a small manufacturer employing 150 employees?

What about Richard Forrestal, Jr., a principal in Cold Spring Construction, a firm specializing in highway and bridge construction?

What about Douglas Stinson, a tree farmer from Toledo, Washington, that runs the Cowlitz Ridge Tree Farm? Each of these testified, Mr. Speaker, that they were impacted negatively by the existence of the death tax.

What about Carol Loop, Jr., president of Luke's Nursery and Greenhouses, a wholesale plant nursery operation in Jacksonville, Florida? He started his business with a $1,500 loan and a borrowed truck. Would the problem be solved with the Pomeroy substitute?

Or Christopher and Kimberly Clements of Golden Eagle Distributors in Tucson, Arizona. They lost their father unexpectedly after a valiant bout with cancer. He lost his life at the age of 58.

Or Jeannine Mizell, a third-generation owner of Mizell Lumber and Hardware Company of Kensington, Maryland.

What about Robert Sakata, a vegetable farmer from Brighton, Colorado, or Jean Stinson, a railroad track manufacturing company in Barto, Florida, running the R. W. Summers Railroad Contractors? Their family had to shut down a facility in North Carolina, laying off two-thirds of the 110 employees to pay the estate tax.

Or Jack Cakebread, founder of Cakebread Cellars in Napa Valley, California. Would each of these individuals be solved or their estate problems solved by the substitute?

It is a rhetorical question, and the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) knows it, and I do not mean to put him on the spot, but he cannot answer the question because when we draw a line, an arbitrary line, wherever we draw that line, we still are going to have those entrepreneurs that have been willing to invest in their businesses, hire employees, build local communities; and as long as the death tax remains in existence, they are going to have to do some sort of estate planning.

I think it is much the better course to completely and finally permanently repeal the tax.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As the gentleman from North Dakota recognizes; and, again, I do not think he meant to misspeak, but the underlying bill, H.R. 8, does provide a step up in basis of $3 million for the surviving spouse and a $1.3 million step up in basis for surviving heirs.

Mr. Speaker, many have worked on the death tax repeal and going back even to the, I think, Family Heritage Preservation Act of 1993. The gentleman from California introduced that bill and I think had 29 cosponsors. Now, of course, we are over 200 on permanent repeal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the gentleman's props, I would commend to him for his reading leisurely ``The Economics of the Estate Tax: An Update,'' a Joint Economic Committee study dated June 2003 which in essence states the estate tax raises very little, if any, net revenue because of distortionary effects of the estate resulting in income tax losses roughly the same size as the revenue collected. Secondly, estate taxes force the development of environmentally sensitive land. Through 2001, 2.6 million acres of forest land were harvested and 1.3 million acres were sold every year to raise funds to pay the estate tax.

Regarding his criticism on philanthropy, the estate tax according to the Joint Economic Committee study, the estate tax may actually be one of the greatest obstacles to charitable giving as estate taxes crowd out charitable bequests.

Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I can assure my friend I will not use the entire 14 minutes to close.

Mr. Speaker, who has the right to close?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Miss McMorris), a newly elected Member from the State of Washington.

Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House today on this very important piece of legislation, the repeal of the death tax and making it permanent.

The repeal of the death tax is one of the first bills that I was honored to place my name on as a cosponsor.

Growing up on a family farm in eastern Washington, I have seen firsthand the negative impacts the death tax has on our families and our businesses.

One of my top priorities in Congress is to grow jobs and expand the economy in the Pacific Northwest.

I believe that the repeal of the death tax will help accomplish this goal, especially for the farmers and small businesses in my district.

The death tax costs thousands of jobs each year; and by repealing this unnecessary tax, jobs will be created and many small business owners will be able to add workers to their payrolls.

As a Member who represents a significant farming sector, I have seen the death tax destroy some family farms. Without a doubt, death taxes hurt our farmers and our ranchers by forcing family farms to sell land, buildings or equipment needed to operate their business in order to pay for this excessive tax. Some family farmers have had to take out a second mortgage on their home to pay for the tax.

When farms and ranches shut down, so do the businesses they support, leaving many out of work and leading to a depressed rural economy.

The time is now to end the death tax. I support the passage of H.R. 8 in order to end this unjust, unfair, and inefficient tax burden on our families, businesses and especially our farming communities.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Let me first say, Mr. Speaker, how much I appreciate my friend from North Dakota as we have done this in a number of sessions of Congress, and I appreciate the tone, and he is a friend of mine, and I have a lot of respect for him and the intent with which he comes to this debate.

Let me answer a couple of points that have been raised in particular, first of all, about the tax simplification. Tax day is 2 days away, and I am sure taxpayers, in particular small businesses and family farmers, would appreciate anything that we can do to simplify our tax laws, and I would submit that permanent repeal of the death tax does just that.

In fact, H.R. 8 is one simple paragraph, and it reads as follows: ``Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall not apply to title V of such Act.'' Basically, we repeal the sunset.

Now, again, the gentleman from North Dakota's (Mr. Pomeroy) substitute, I counted, and I hope I am counting correctly, but 40 subparagraphs and directing accountants and the like to this subparagraph or that particular paragraph.

The reason that we are here is because of complicated and arcane Senate budget rules, called the Byrd rule, that we phase out the death tax for one single year. In 2010, it magically disappears, and then on January 1 of 2011 it springs back to life, and the uncertainty, how would one as an estate planner advise a client when the tax is gone today and comes back again in the very next year? By making death tax repeal permanent, we give taxpayers the certainty they need to make those long-term financial decisions.

The form itself, the blank form I am holding here, Form 706, is 40 pages in length for the estate tax return, 40 pages in length, and it comes with a handy dandy 30-page instruction booklet. So when one is talking about simplification, what better simplification would there be than ripping these pages dealing with the estate tax completely out of the Internal Revenue Code?

Lastly, when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of it, whether or not the Pomeroy substitute, and again, in the effort to pursue the American dream, whether those businesses are going to be shielded by the Pomeroy substitute or not shielded, the fact is that as long as the tax is on the books, as long as Congress draws some line in the sand, and that is all we are doing with the substitute, is just some arbitrary line, we are still going to have those family businesses that are going to be taking some of their resources and these convoluted schemes, legal, but efforts to avoid the tax.

Again, we hear a lot about these very high-profile individuals who have been successful. I mean, this is the land of opportunity, is it not? I would submit to my colleagues that the billionaires and the top of the Fortune 500 lists, those folks have a stable full of lawyers and accountants to create this intricate estate plan to thwart the estate tax.

Not so, and I go back to the original discussion, that small family in Columbia, Missouri, the Eiffert family who spends $52,000 a year just to buy term life insurance because they might have to face the estate tax. Under the current law, or probably even under the gentleman from North Dakota's (Mr. Pomeroy) substitute, there is no certainty for families like the Eiffert family.

So I salute my colleague.

The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), again a colleague of mine on the Committee on Ways and Means, said, why are not we debating real reform? Interestingly, there is a lot of discussion. I am not here to advocate one particular tax reform proposal because we have got this blue ribbon panel that is happening and looking at various options. There is a lot of talk about the consumption tax, and yet it is notable that, while there may be support for the idea of a general consumption tax, the death tax, by contrast, is a tax on nonconsumption.

We talk a lot, too, about sin taxes. Why can we not put taxes on alcohol or on cigarettes and the like and whether or not that generates support among certain groups. This death tax is a tax on virtue. In other words, if you work hard, you play by the rules, if you scrape together your savings, and, again, we as an industrialized Nation, not only do we have even under the Pomeroy substitute a 47 percent death tax rate which would be the second highest in the world, but the fact is that we are not very good at savings and investments. In fact, if you are looking at your 1040 right now, look at line eight because it says if you have been thrifty and you are able to generate a little interest income, guess what, Uncle Sam says put this amount here because we are going to take our bite of the apple.

Permanent repeal of the death tax actually rewards virtue.

Let me just paraphrase a column recently, actually it was some years ago

but I think republished recently by Professor Edward J. McCaffery. He is a professor who says this: ``As a committed liberal myself, I used to believe that the gift and estate tax was essential to a just society. But as a former estate planner and a scholar in both law and economics, I confess that I was mistaken. The gift and estate tax is quite simply a bad tax, even, and maybe especially, when viewed from a liberal perspective.''

Professor McCaffrey goes on and says, ``This is not a supply-side argument but a moral one. People who die with large amounts of wealth have done three good things for society. They have exercised their talents, rather than living a life of leisure. They have saved, contributing to a common pool of capital whose benefits manifest, for example, in lower interest rates, inure to all. And they have refrained from spending all of their wealth on themselves.''

In fact, Professor McCaffrey across the Capitol some years ago I think before the Senate Finance Committee said, to paraphrase Scripture, the reason he changed his mind, I was blind but now I see.

If this comes from an unrequited liberal that the estate tax, the death tax, is a bad tax, then I would suggest to all of my colleagues here that it is time to permanently and completely repeal the tax.

Finally, I would say to my friend again, because there has been some discussion about creating a new tax, as the gentleman knows, the intent of H.R. 8, the underlying bill, is to help make it easier to pass a family business from one generation to the next. As we have heard from nonpartisan groups, 70 percent of family businesses do not make it to a second generation, 87 percent of family businesses do not make it to a third generation, and often the reason cited is because of this very confiscatory punitive tax called the death tax.

The fact is that under H.R. 8, if it were to pass and become the law of the land, the tax rate imposed at death on a lifetime of work and thrift is zero percent. Under my friend's substitute amendment, the rate imposed would be locked in at 47 percent.

Now I mentioned my personal experience, and I am running our family farm. If a surviving heir chooses not to farm and then makes the conscious decision to dispose of assets, then that is a taxable event, but that is a purposeful decision made by the heirs of that family business owner. It is not the Federal Government requiring the death of a family member to be a taxable event.

So I would simply say to all of my colleagues that death should not be a taxable event, period. Under the underlying bill of H.R. 8, it would no longer be a taxable event. Under the substitute from my friend, individuals above an arbitrary line drawn by this body, death would continue to be an event that triggers the Federal death tax. That is why prominent organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Business, American Farm Bureau Federation and a host of other small business coalition members, representing the interest of small businesses and family farms across the country, support H.R. 8 and oppose my friend from North Dakota's substitute.

I urge a ``no'' on the substitute and a ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of a Missourian who has devoted countless hours promoting the arts in my hometown of Columbia, Missouri. She is in every sense a true Renaissance woman. Mr. Speaker, I am referring to Mary Nell Porter.

After graduating from Chillicothe Business College, Mary Nell moved to Washington, D.C. to support her country in the effort that yielded victory in World War II. It was during this time

that Mary Nell began what would become a lifetime commitment to volunteerism. Her unwavering support for fellow Americans is reflected in her activities that included volunteering her time at recruiting stations and at Cardinal Spellman's Foundling Home in New York.

At the end of World War II, she moved to New York City, where she defied the limits that hindered the progress of women in the workforce. By rising to positions of authority and respect in prominent companies such as American Cynamid and Alexander's Department Store, Mary Nell served as an inspiration to countless women who made the decision to pursue a professional career.

Upon her return to Missouri, Mary Nell continued her pursuit of knowledge and graduated from the University of Missouri-Columbia with a degree in Business Administration. Since that time, she has focused her efforts on a passion for music and joined the Women's Symphony League, Friends of Music of the University of Missouri, the University of Missouri's Arts & Sciences Alum Association Board and later served on the Missouri Symphony Society Board of Directors.

Mary Nell's time, energy and generous spirit have been invaluable to the Missouri Symphony Society as well as the Missouri Theatre. She has been critical in the creation of a thriving arts community in my hometown of Columbia. I am eternally grateful for her devotion to our community, and it is my pleasure to share Mary Nell Porter's accomplishment and valuable contributions with my colleagues.