Wally Herger

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, liberals here in Congress and in the White House love to claim that Republicans are raising taxes on the poor because of our efforts to reform the earned income tax credit. This claim is bogus and is an outright scare tactic. EITC was set up in the 1970's to help working, poor families. It was designed to be a tax refund program. Since then, EITC has turned into a welfare program. In fact, only one-quarter of the $21 billion spent on EITC actually go to tax refunds. The other three-fourths go to welfare grants. The program has expanded far beyond its original intent. In the last 10 years, spending on the program has increased 1,220 percent. This is unsustainable growth. Mr. Speaker, the American people need to know that we are not raising taxes on poor people. Every family covered by EITC will receive the $500 per-child tax credit and it is an outright fabrication to suggest that reforming EITC is a tax increase.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1585. I would like to thank the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] and the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Cooley] for their strong support, and also the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] on the minority side. Mr. Speaker, this is a noncontroversial bill that completes an equal value land exchange between the Modoc National Forest and the Bank of California. This legislation enjoys strong support from the Forest Service and local communities in the Lassen and Modoc Counties of northern California. The land exchange was commenced by the Bank of California and the Forest Service to consolidate their respective holdings in parts of the Lassen, Modoc, and Plumas National Forests. Because the transaction would require a boundary change in the Modoc National Forest, the exchange was structured in two phases. The first phase was completed in June 1993. This legislation will help complete phase 2 of the transaction. The land that will be added to the Modoc National Forest is currently used for grazing and tree production, both of which are consistent with the current land management plan. Mr. Speaker, this exchange will not adversely affect any existing property or land use rights, and will complete a reasonable and fair transaction. By consolidating Federal landholdings, it will reduce land management costs, increase fishery habitat, and provide additional recreational opportunities within the Modoc National Forest. Mr. Speaker, I give this bill my full endorsement, and strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of final passage.

Mr. HERGER

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

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

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

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, today we have embarked on a truly historic debate that will ultimately culminate in the passage of the first balanced budget in over a quarter of a century. Mr. Chairman, the American voters sent Members of this Congress here to Washington to change business as usual and put our national fiscal house in order. Mr. Chairman, the American people understand how to balance a budget. They do it every day. Unlike Washington, small business owners have to meet budgets and payrolls or they will go out of business. Local governments have to live within their means. Mr. Chairman, families across this Nation sit around their kitchen tables every month to figure out how to provide shelter, food, and clothing for their families with only the money they currently have. Indeed, the American people know how to balance a budget and, Mr. Chairman, it is time that Washington does the same. Yet, ironically, the Americans that will benefit the most from this balanced budget are not even old enough to vote: our children. Mr. Chairman, it is morally wrong to ask future generations to pay for the current excessive expenditures. For example, past spending has left a $5 trillion legacy for a child born today, which faces $187,000 in taxes just to pay their inherited share of interest on the national debt. Mr. Chairman, the budget before us today is a fair one. It puts an end to frivolous expenditures by finally prioritizing spending and making the tough choices that previous Congresses refused to make. Mr. Chairman, it is our moral obligation to pass this historic balanced budget.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, in April, the Medicare trustees stated that if nothing was done, Medicare would begin going broke next year, and become functionally bankrupt by the year 2002. Mr. Chairman, the Republican reforms proposed in the Medicare preservation act will preserve, will protect and will strengthen Medicare for future generations. Mr. Chairman, there are clear and distinct differences between the Republican plan that guarantees Medicare's survival and the Democratic substitute. While the Republican plan saves Medicare for the next generation--the Democrat bill only saves Medicare through the next election. While the Republican bill fixes Medicare for the long-term without increasing co-payments or deductibles, the Democrat substitute is nothing more than a band-aid, producing, at best, a short-term solution to this gaping problem. In fact, by the time the baby boomers retire, the Democrat alternative will have left Medicare with a projected deficit of over $300 billion. Conversely, the Republican plan is specific and realistic and gives seniors the right to choose the Medicare plan that best suits their individual health care needs. Seniors will have the right to choose a HMO or a medisave account or they have the right to stay where they currently are, with their current doctor or hospital. The Democrat plan, on the other hand, doesn't give seniors the right to choose--trapping them in the same one size fits all program. Mr. Chairman, our choice is clear, we can either stay with our present broken-down 1965 model Medicare system or we can move ahead to a much improved 1995 model. I urge my colleagues to oppose this substitute and support the Republican Medicare preservation act.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Cramer amendment. Mr. Chairman, the modernization of the National Weather Service's purpose is to consolidate weather service offices nationwide without jeopardizing the quality of weather service to any region. While I strongly support this goal, weather service users, the public, and elected officials have repeatedly expressed deep concern that the modernization plan might actually degrade services in some regions of the country. In response to these concerns, Congress enacted Public Law 102-567, which stipulates that the weather service will not close any of its stations without first certifying that doing so will not degrade weather service to the affected region. Mr. Chairman, I have grave concerns about the provisions of this bill that repeal this mandate. No one in this Chamber is more committed to streamlining Government than I am. However, we should not do so at the expense of the safety of the people in northern California and elsewhere in the country. Yet, that is precisely what will happen if we do not adopt the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama. Mr. Chairman, let me illustrate by describing several situations in my own district of northern California. [[Page H 10144]] Presently, the National Weather Service plans to close its office in the city of Redding, the largest population center in California north of Sacramento. This decision has been made despite mountains of credible scientific evidence, including findings by the weather service meteorologists in California, that doing so could have a potentially devastating impact on Redding and the communities further north. The mountains to the north of Redding, including the Interstate 5 corridor, which provides the primary transportation route between Oregon and California, are subject to severe storms that have been the source of some of the worst flooding in California history. Last spring, for example, floods ravaged the 10 counties in my district, leaving each a Federal disaster area. During this tragedy, the weather service in Redding provided critical, up-to-the-minute information to local officials, enabling them to react almost instantaneously to individual emergencies.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, since the mid-1800's, Western intellectuals have been consumed by what is known as the leveling impulse. The leveling impulse is the idea that Government can create a more just society by redistributing wealth. Today, the modern Democrat Party is grounded in the leveling impulse. To Democrats, any talk of a tax decrease is absolutely sinful. This is why they rail at any attempt by this Republican Congress to give working American families a $500-per-child tax credit. That is why they scream when reduced capital gains are mentioned. And that is why they fight to preserve every silly Government spending project ever devised. Madam Speaker, Democrats claim we are raiding Medicare to give tax breaks for the rich. This is beyond ludicrous. Our tax cuts are more than offset by shrinking the bureaucratic government. The real problem here is that Democrats are still convinced that all money belongs to them and that government is a miracle worker.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, just to review the purpose of this legislation, and I rise in strong opposition to the Schroeder gutting amendment and in support of the Bono voting rights bill, but I ask the Members if they can imagine this scenario? Last November an overwhelming number of Californians voted, almost 60 percent, supporting the passage of proposition 187. What proposition 187 would have done is eliminate social services for illegal aliens. Not legal aliens or citizens, but for a people who are in this country illegally in the first place. An overwhelming 5\1/2\ million California taxpayers said enough is enough. They said that they have problems enough taking care of their own citizens and they voted to put a stop to this spending that costs California taxpayers over $200 million every year. But, amazingly, this overwhelming will of the people in California was snubbed by just one individual. Mr. Chairman, referendums, more than any other electoral process, reflect the direct will of the people and should not be easily cast aside. Under the current system, opponents of a referendum can go judge shopping to find one single judge that will stop the referendum. This legislation, the Bono voting rights legislation, will replace that practice with a three-judge panel from all parts of the State so that the referendum, the will of the people, gets a fair shake. I urge support of the voting rights bill and I urge opposition against the gutting Schroeder amendment.

Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, to respond to the gentlewoman, again, what we are attempting to do is get the will of the people. We still have a situation where 5\1/2\ million, right at 60 percent of the voters of the State of California, voted overwhelmingly on a measure that would prevent their taxpayer dollars going to illegal aliens and we had a situation where one judge, one Federal judge, was able to upset the overwhelming will of the people of the State of California. What we are trying to do is at least bring in to play a three-judge panel so that the voters will have a better shake in future referendums.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, Democrats have been playing a broken record for the last few months. It goes something like this: ``Medicare is not really going bankrupt--Republicans only want to give a tax break to the rich.'' What unmitigated drivel. I've heard a lot of tall stories in my time, but this takes the prize. It is true that Republicans advocate tax cuts. But the vast overwhelming majority of those tax cuts go to middle-income working American families. One of those tax cuts is the $500-per-child tax credit for almost every child in America. Now, let me ask a question: Are there more millionaires in this country, or working families with children? The most important point to realize here is that tax cuts have nothing to do with Medicare. Even if the budget was balanced and rich people were taxed 100 percent of their income, Medicare would still go broke in 7 years. Mr. Speaker, Democrats need to fix their broken record and begin helping Republicans save Medicare.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, in this time of burgeoning U.S. Trade deficits, why would we even consider eliminating one of our most successful export programs? Consider, for example, what this program has done for the walnut and raisin industries in California. In 1986 the United States market share of walnuts in Japan was 30 percent. As a result of a highly successful MPP promotional program, 9 years later the California industry controls 71 percent of the market and exports nearly 12,000 metric tons of walnuts to Japan. The raisin industry has enjoyed similar success in the United Kingdom where agricultural exports encounter stiff competition from heavily subsidized European commodities. Over the last 9 years, with the help of the MPP, California raisin shipments to the United Kingdom have increased sixfold, capturing 45 percent of the entire market. Today California raisins are known and preferred by over 54 percent of the households in England. Mr. Chairman, let's not penalize ourselves for succeeding. I urge no vote on the Zimmer amendment.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, liberal Democrats would like nothing more than to frame the debate over Medicare in terms of generational conflict, where senior citizens are pitted against young people. This line of reasoning is beyond ludicrous. The crisis that faces Medicare is something that affects everyone. Medicare must be protected and must be preserved for everyone. It must not be used to drive a wedge between people. [[Page H 7185]] Since the beginning of this Congress, Republicans have been committed to ending business as usual here in Washington. That means not ignoring bad news--not even about Medicare. This spring, the Medicare trustees board reported that Medicare will go bankrupt in 7 years. Democrats, have completely ignored this news. They offer no ideas no how to save Medicare. Mr. Speaker, Republicans will not let Medicare go bankrupt, and we will not allow Medicare to become a political football in a cheap game of generational warfare.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, liberal Democrats are fond of taking to the floor to whine about Medicare cuts. Why, just the other day, the minority leader himself was here talking about the ``deep, deep'' cuts in Medicare. I have here a chart that shows what Republicans will be spending on Medicare through the year 2002. There is no cut. There is not even a ``deep, deep'' cut. In fact, spending increases. In 1995, Medicare beneficiaries will receive $4,816. In 2002, they will receive $6,734. The spending increases. Where is the cut? Mr. Speaker, the liberal Democrats in this Chamber have offered no real, substantive plan to protect Medicare. All they offer--in fact, all they really stand for any more--is paranoia. This is no way to govern. This is no way to lead. The American people expect and deserve more than just fear [[Page H 6837]] tactics. Republicans, unlike Democrats, will protect Medicare and preserve it for future generations.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, last fall we promised the American people we would reduce the size of government, zero out the deficit and provide tax relief. And today we are keeping that promise. While this joint budget agreement does not go as far as some of us may have liked, I believe this agreement is a major victory. This budget puts us on a path to a zero budget by the year 2002 and begins to move people from welfare to work, saving $100 billion. We have cut discretionary spending by $190 billion, and we have already started to cut back foreign aid. Mr. Speaker, this budget provides $245 billion in tax relief, including a $500-per-child tax credit, tax relief for our seniors and incentives for economic growth. Mr. Speaker, for the sake of our children and our grandchildren, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this balanced budget.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Chairman, I believe the main point of this amendment has been missed. I find it quite ironic that I find myself in virtual complete agreement with those who are speaking against this amendment. I also favor the museum. I also favor our military. I favor us honoring those who have fought bravely for our military and for our country. That is not the purpose of this amendment. The purpose is, why should we as taxpayers be spending an additional $14 million to purchase more land to build a museum on when we have land already available? Are we not closing down several departments? Are we not downsizing here in Washington? Do we not have Pentagon property, Fort Myer property, adjacent to this property that the Federal Government and the taxpayers already own? Do we have to go out and buy more property? Do we have to go out and spend, I feel unwisely, more taxpayer dollars? That is the issue. Again, I support the museum, but I support it being built on presently owned taxpayer property which is in the same area. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Browder].

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge].

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, let me outline again the purpose of this amendment. The purpose of my amendment was not to eliminate the building of this museum in honor of the Army and those who have fought valiantly for our country over the centuries of our Nation's history. That is not the purpose. The purpose of this amendment was to save $14 million to allow us to be able to go ahead and construct this museum. I might mention that the Army has indicated that this would not be done with taxpayers' dollars. It would be done by private donations, but to do so on land that the Federal Government already owns, to do so on land, for example, which is adjacent to it, Fort Myer, of which there is ample property to build a museum, or perhaps at the Pentagon on part of their parking lot where, again, there is ample land to build this museum, both of which are directly adjacent to the proposed site. Again, during a time when we are looking at the $200 billion budget deficits, $14 million is not insignificant, when we can go out and do it with property that already exists, I believe we should do so. So, again, I would urge the House to vote in favor of this amendment to eliminate this $14 million expenditure but to do so by building, again, this museum on land that already exists, already is owned by the Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.