Wally Herger

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, the ranking member of the Rules Committee (Mr. Dreier). (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to mention that the United States is the number one trading Nation in the world. Because of the great trade that we have, we have one of the lowest unemployment rates of any Nation in the world, 4.5 percent. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, a very active member of the Trade Subcommittee (Mr. Brady).

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Ways and Means Committee and a very active member of the Trade Subcommittee.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

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

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Again, I thank the gentleman from Washington and also the ranking member, Mr. Tiahrt. Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. McHugh

Mr. HERGER. Again I thank the chairman for that clarification. Further, while I believe it would be inappropriate for those of us in Congress to micromanage the efforts of law enforcement as they work to dismantle these illegal drug networks by allocating funds only to specific areas, is the chairman able to clarify the committee's intention with regard to the distribution of funds throughout the Nation? Is it the committee's aim to ensure that the funds allocated are targeted to areas of the country that face the highest concentration of drug trafficking activity in the national forests?

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for a colloquy with the gentleman from Washington. Mr. Chairman, over the past several years, we have seen the rise of a very disturbing trend on Federal lands: the creation of a billion- dollar international drug trafficking ring. Organized criminal gangs, headquartered in Mexico, have illegally entered our country and have established large scale marijuana growing operations in our national forests and national parks. Gang members guarding these illegal ``pot gardens'' have been armed with automatic weapons and given orders to shoot to kill anyone who trespasses in the area. Hunters, recreators, and Federal employees in my district and others have been shot at when recreating or working on Federal lands. Eight of the Nation's 10 worst national forests in terms of illegal marijuana production are located in California. Three of those eight problem areas are located in my congressional district of northern California: the Shasta-Trinity, the Klamath, and the Mendocino National Forest. Our Nation's national parks are also victim to illegal occupation by Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Regrettably, my home State of California suffers the worst of the infestation on Park Service lands as well. This includes a very serious problem at the Whiskeytown National Recreation Area in my district where illegal marijuana grows have been discovered within a few hundred yards of popular boating and fishing areas.

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

Mr. HERGER. I thank the chairman and greatly appreciate his efforts and the efforts of Ranking Member Tiahrt to improve public safety on Federal recreation lands. Is it the committee's intention in granting this increase to ensure that these funds should be used to help dismantle and eradicate Mexican drug trafficking organizations in our national forests and parks?

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 485 to H. Amdt. 294, I was recorded as a ``no,'' but it was my strong intention to vote ``aye'' on this amendment.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 485, I inadvertently voted ``no,'' when I meant to vote ``aye.'' Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Royce

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I recently served on the Budget Committee for 8 years, during which time we had the only four balanced budgets in recent history. I am sad to see, however, that today's budget envisions what could amount to the largest tax increase in American history to pay for higher spending. The budget would increase discretionary spending at roughly three times the inflationary rate while failing to achieve real savings for taxpayers. Taxes will grow by at least $217 billion as pro-growth tax relief is allowed to expire. Even the child tax credit and marriage penalty relief may not be extended. I urge Members to reject this budget.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 518, the International Solid Waste Importation and Management Act of 2007. No one can accuse me of shying away from a fight to defend America's rights, including the right to regulate foreign trash that poses legitimate health or safety risks for our citizens. Yet there are right ways to address trade issues and wrong ways. This bill represents the wrong way. The bottom line is that this bill allows States to ban or restrict trash imports in violation of our Congressional prerogatives, Federalist system, and international commitments. Yesterday, the U.S. Trade Representative's Office sent a letter to the Speaker and Republican Leadership expressing concerns that this bill would enable States to openly violate our international trade obligations--trade rules that we depend on to defend our companies and workers from unfair foreign practices. I would ask that this letter be included in the Record. At a time when this Congress has called again and again for nations such as China to adhere to trade rules and for these rules to be vigorously enforced, how can we reasonably expect our trading partners to comply with trade obligations with which we do not comply ourselves? Moreover, this bill is targeted at Canada, our largest trading partner, whose imports of American products impact virtually every corner of our country. Violations of our trade obligations to Canada would allow Canada to choose which products and industries to target for retaliation--exposing virtually every Congressman and Congresswoman here to damaging sanctions against their districts. This bill would send us back to the Articles of Confederation, under which States setting their own trade policies almost tore our Nation apart. Now, more than 200 years later, we would be abdicating our Congressional responsibility and setting a very dangerous precedent.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, in 2001 President Bush and Congress worked to enact the most important tax relief since Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. For individuals and families, we reduced marginal tax rates on personal income, doubled the child tax credit, reduced the unfair marriage tax penalty, phased out the onerous death tax, and significantly lessened the impact of the alternative minimum tax. We also provided essential tax relief on investment income. Far from taxpayer protection, as this bill's title suggests, we are now hearing proposals from the other side that would do away with the tax relief of the last 6 years. Contrary to the naysayers, tax relief has played a critical role in revitalizing our Nation's economy. Over 7.5 million new jobs have been created since 2003. The national unemployment rate has fallen to a very low 4.4 percent. Economic growth has been steady and strong. Our investment markets are no longer bursting; they are booming. American families and small businesses did not just sit on the $1.1 trillion that we returned to them. They put much of it back into our economy through investment and consumption. The result: Tax revenues are up 35 percent and deficits are much lower than CBO anticipated. Mr. Speaker, as we observe tax day, to truly protect taxpayers, Congress should talk about ways to make the tax relief we have permanent. Regrettably, the majority party and its budget anticipate the opposite.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, in 2003 Congress and the President enacted the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. This bill strengthened and expanded the existing ability of small businesses to immediately expense new investment under Section 179 of the tax code. The objective of this law was to further encourage small businesses to make new capital investments, helping to spur economic growth and create jobs in our economy. Like many, I believe we should permanently extend and expand this provision, which is why I am introducing the Small Business Expensing Expansion and Permanency Act of 2007. The Jobs and Growth Act increased from $25,000 to $100,000 the amount of new investment a business can expense--or deduct from income--in a given year. The law also increased--from $200,000 to $400,000--the amount of total investment a business can make in a year and still qualify for expensing under Section 179. The original sunset date for expensing was slated for 2007, however we successfully extended the current law expensing limits under the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act in 2006. They will now expire in 2009. If the higher expensing limits are good for our nation's small businesses over the next two years, they should be good for small businesses indefinitely. This legislation will repeal the 2009 sunset and expand the current expensing limits to $200,000, indexed for inflation. The current phase out level would also increase, and would begin at $800,000 of annual investment. Further, the legislation would allow more small businesses to use this powerful expensing ability by reducing the phase out to only 50 cents on every next dollar of investment. Effectively, firms investing up to $1.2 million per year would be able to use some level of expensing. Small businesses truly are the backbone of our economy, representing more than half of all jobs and economic output. We should not take small business vitality for granted, however. Rather, our tax laws should support small businesses in their role as the engines of innovation, growth, and job creation. Madam Speaker, in difficult economic times, we must do all we can to encourage new investment and job creation by creating certainty and predictability for America's small business owners. The Small Business Expensing Expansion and Permanency Act of 2007 will help accomplish this worthy goal. I applaud the Administration for its consistent leadership on this issue, and I look forward to working with others in Congress to enact this much-needed legislation.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the alternative budget before us now and the Democrat budget. The Democrat majority party seems intent on raising taxes and increasing spending. American families, seniors, and small businesses would all experience major tax hikes. Virtually no American would be spared. The budget before us ignores the benefits of the tax relief passed since 2001. This tax relief has spurred economic growth and created literally millions of new jobs. Meanwhile, tax revenue to the Federal Treasury is surging, helping to reduce the deficit. Their budget also ignores the out-of-control growth in entitlement spending. This is deeply irresponsible. The tax-tax/spend-spend philosophy supported by my friends across the aisle is bad economics and bad for the American people. Vote ``no.''

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the FY 2007 supplemental measure as currently written. It would place dangerous constraints on our mission and our war on terrorism in Iraq by empowering our Congress to overrule our Nation's top generals, who best understand the challenges there. Our Iraq policy should be based on the recommendation of General Petraeus, not the commands of armchair generals in Congress. Our Nation's mission in Iraq is too important to fall victim to the dangerous congressional micromanagement. Iraq is a central front in a war against the radical jihadists. The outcome of this mission will greatly impact our national security for decades to come. For this reason, this body should pass a supplemental bill that fully funds our troops, without tying the hands of our military commanders. Vote ``no'' on this supplemental.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I hope we all can recognize the profound importance of our mission in Iraq. History surely will. The mission in Iraq will impact our national security for decades to come. The United States seeks a region of stability and peace to create a more secure world for our children and grandchildren. Al Qaeda seeks a region of terror and bloodshed. The President believes victory in Iraq is key to victory on the war on terror. Al Qaeda believes our defeat in Iraq is key to its vision of violent Islamic rule. Our security is clearly at risk. Americans are frustrated by the current situation in Iraq. We have witnessed the removal of a historic dictator, yet our men and women in uniform remain at risk. We have witnessed historic democratic elections, yet those elected have not yet brought security. We have been told about the progress we have experienced in training Iraqi security forces, yet violence continues to rage. With growing uneasiness, we have watched a back and forth tug of war between progress and setback, and we mourn the loss of every single brave American who has fallen during this mission. Madam Speaker, I share this frustration and sorrow. Yet I believe we must not allow our frustrations to blind us to the need for victory over radical jihadists. This House must work together in addressing the challenges in Iraq, because the outcome will be closely linked to our own national security for years to come. Regrettably, the resolution before us does nothing to enhance this security. It does not offer a solution to the challenges in Iraq. It does not recognize the magnitude of the failure. And it does not recognize the nature of our enemies. For these reasons I strongly oppose it. Madam Speaker, we know terrorists friendly to bin Laden are among the enemy in Iraq. Even before the fall of Saddam's regime, the terrorist mastermind Zarqawi had sought refuge in Iraq. His network of terror grew rapidly. Bin Laden's top deputy applauded his actions and counseled him on achieving dominance in the region. Although Zarqawi himself can no longer do harm, al Qaeda in Iraq remains a threat to our security. An American defeat in Iraq would embolden the terrorists like no event before, bolstering bin Laden's view that America is weak. Al Qaeda would enjoy more than just a morale boost; they would have a new operational base to plot attacks against Americans and train new recruits. An American defeat in Iraq would almost certainly bring forth a government that turns a blind eye towards terrorism. This, Madam Speaker, would be catastrophic to our national security. An American defeat in Iraq would also generate unspeakable chaos in the Middle East. The dangerous regime in Iran is already seeking to capitalize on what it perceives as our weakness. Iran is well on its way to developing nuclear weapons, and its fanatical president has publicly said that he wishes to destroy America and Israel. Syria would also take advantage of a power vacuum in Iraq, further destabilizing the Middle East. What is good for hostile regimes like Iran and Syria can be devastating for America's security. In closing, Iraq is a central front in the war on terrorism, and its future will greatly influence our future security. An American victory would foster stability in a volatile region and provide a resounding defeat for terror. For these reasons, we must give the President's new plan in Iraq a chance to succeed. Our resolve must override our frustrations. Our support for the remarkable members of our Armed Forces must be unwavering. And our determination in fighting radical jihadists who want to kill us and our families must never run dry. Madam Speaker, that determination must never run dry

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I have long championed tax relief for small businesses because I believe such firms are the life-blood of our economy. As a small businessman myself, I know how small business owners struggle to remain profitable in a highly competitive and extremely challenging environment. Yet they continue to be the drivers of much of our nation's economic and new job growth. It is for this reason that I have strongly supported increases to the current section 179 small business expensing limits, an end to the onerous death tax, and the reduced double taxation of capital gains and dividends. I am concerned, however, that a little known revenue raising provision, passed as part of the tax reconciliation bill last May, will hamper small business creative spirit by significantly and adversely changing the way governments pay for the goods they use and services they require. Effective in 2011, section 511 of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 will require federal, state, and local governments to withhold 3 percent from payments for goods and services, excluding payments to non-profits and those made by governments with less than $100 million in annual expenditures. This onerous provision will not take effect for just under four years. But I believe we have to begin addressing the impacts it will have on honest taxpaying businesses now, and actively seek alternatives to withholding. Thousands of businesses and individuals across the country are reimbursed by governments for various reasons every day. In my Northern California congressional district, governments rely on local and regional businesses all the time to maintain public services--from the electrician who re-wires a city council chamber in Redding to the construction company that builds an interchange at a dangerous stretch of highway in Butte County. When the Feather River needs a new setback levee, or an existing levee in the network requires urgent repairs to protect the community, the Army Corps of Engineers employs local businesses for construction and materials. Similarly, when an escape route from a fire-prone community requires widening, the government turns to local sources to get the job done. In 2011, however, firms providing these necessary goods and services to governments will see 3 percent of their payments withheld. I am troubled that the withholding provision will effectively force firms to float a new interest-free loan to the federal Treasury if they do business with a local, state or federal government. In addition, unlike other income-based withholding, which is actually based on tax liability, the new government withholding provision is based on government payments with no relationship to a company's taxable income. This means that, while businesses will be deprived of much needed cash flows for day-to-day operations, the 3 percent provision could end up significantly over withholding for tax purposes. The Joint Committee on Taxation confirmed this in its description of the provision, stating ``sellers of goods and materials are more likely to have overwithholding and, thus, bear more of the burden of a flat rate because of the lower profit margin on such sales relative to sales of services.'' The provision would also disproportionately harm small- and medium- sized businesses that operate on low margins, and contractors that frequently employ subcontractors. It is conceivable that, faced with 3 percent withholding on a revenue source, companies that do business with governments may inflate contract costs to compensate, shift costs to subcontractors, or simply hire fewer employees over the course of the year. Others may resort to increased debt financing to make up for reduced cash flows. In addition, governments at all levels have expressed concerns over the new administrative burdens that such withholding will require. Among the reasons for inclusion of this provision was a desire to reduce America's tax gap, or the difference between the taxes we believe should be collected in a given year, and those that actually are. The Internal Revenue Service currently estimates the net tax gap to be in the area of $290 billion. Whether due to taxpayer error or willful tax avoidance, the tax gap is a very real problem that can undermine taxpayer confidence in the voluntary nature of our tax system, and encourage continued non-compliance. According to the National Taxpayer Advocate, the ``cost'' of the tax gap could be equated to a $2,000 annual ``surtax'' on each taxpayer to subsidize non-compliance. The result is that the tax gap ends up ``harming compliant taxpayers because they pay their correct tax liability while others do not.'' Like many, I believe that bridging the tax gap and encouraging tax compliance should remain a top priority of both Congress and the Administration. Where identification of specific non-compliant sectors of the economy has been difficult, the Administration should continue to investigate ways it can use its existing authority to improve the collection and utilization of nonwage taxpayer information for enforcement purposes. In addition, as better information on noncompliance is generated, Congress should actively consider whether additional legislation is needed to crack down on tax cheats. Prior to implementing a new tax collection regime, such as the 3 percent withholding provision, we should investigate what other methods are at our disposal to deal with the outstanding problems of non- compliance. To this end, I believe that any solution that aims to reduce the tax gap should consider the impacts of new burdens on taxpayers. For this reason, I am pleased to join my fellow Ways and Means Committee member, Representative Kendrick Meek of Florida, in introducing the ``Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2007.'' This bill mirrors legislation I introduced toward the end of the 109th Congress along with Senator Larry Craig of Idaho. While I recognize the underlying problem of tax compliance must be addressed, I believe this problem--as it pertains to businesses and individuals that provide goods and services to governments--can be tackled in a less intrusive manner than withholding, and with positive results. As reported by the Joint Committee, the withholding provision is estimated to increase revenues coming into the Treasury by $6.079 billion in its first year of implementation, and between $215 million and $235 million per year over the next 4 years. Further, the Joint Committee recognizes that the ``significant revenue effect'' in the year of implementation ``is largely attributable to accelerating tax receipts,'' indicating that the additional compliance sought by this provision is really in the ballpark of $235 million. Still, in order to recapture this amount of unpaid taxes, the withholding provision will affect over $6 billion of government payments to honest businesses and individual taxpayers. It is unrealistic to think that we could ever reduce non-compliance to zero, especially given the enormous complexity of our current tax code. But apart from fundamental tax reform and simplification, increased compliance should remain an objective. Congress and the Administration should continue to pursue increased compliance alternatives, including the use of the Federal Government's already broad authority to levy Federal payments, improving coordination and use of taxpayer information, requiring new information reporting, or increasing enforcement. Ultimately, though, any alternatives that focus on compliance should be balanced against the new burdens such compliance mechanisms would cause. We should avoid placing unnecessary burdens on all honest taxpayers in a particular sector of the economy to force the compliance of the few. Although I recognize that repeal of the 3 percent withholding provision will leave the actual problem of non-compliance unanswered, I believe withholding is the wrong policy approach to this issue. Repeal, as proposed in the ``Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2007,'' serves as a reminder of the importance of this issue, and the need to seriously address the impacts this policy will have on businesses in the congressional district I represent and elsewhere in the country. In addition, we must also begin discussion of alternatives to withholding. I intend to continue working with others in the 110th Congress on ways to reduce any eventual burdens this provision will cause, as well as alternatives to withholding that will reduce taxpayer non-compliance.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. I thank the gentleman, my good friend from Oregon, Mr. Walden. And I thank the work that Mr. DeFazio is doing and the others in this incredibly, crucially important issue that affects those of us in rural areas of the West, particularly, and in these forested areas. Like both of you, I have a heavily forested district and I understand the challenges that our rural communities face because of the large Federal presence in our area. Many of our fellow citizens, and even some of the Members of this body, do not realize that the presence of Federal lands places a burden on nearby communities. I am so pleased to join you tonight in shining the light on that fact and reminding our colleagues that the Secure Rural Schools program has expired and is in need of reauthorization. In my district of Northern California, school boards, county officials, and sheriff departments are currently in crisis mode. For example, Siskiyou County is looking at a 91 percent loss in school funding. In Tehama County, library hours, music, art, and physical education classes will be dramatically cut. And this crisis extends well beyond education. County road safety programs will be decimated as well. Sheriff departments will also bear the brunt of these cuts. In total, eight of my 10 counties are experiencing drastic budget declines because Congress has not extended the Secure Rural Schools program. It is important to point out to our friends who represent urban areas that this crisis is not the fault of rural counties. It is the fault of Federal policies that are out of their control, specifically the failure of Congress to address that burden by extending the Secure and Rural Schools program. In my home State of California, close to half of the land area is owned by the Federal Government. And in my district that number is considerably larger. In one of my counties, nearly 90 percent of the land is under Federal ownership. This large Federal presence has placed the counties I represent at a severe economic disadvantage. Acreage that would normally be privately owned and, therefore, generating tax revenue to help fund essential local services, is, instead, locked away by the Federal Government. President Teddy Roosevelt and our predecessors who served in the 60th Congress recognized this problem and addressed it with a promise which was enshrined in the law in 1908, that the Federal Government would pay its fair share of local costs by sending a percentage of national forest revenues to the counties that are home to Federal lands. This promise acknowledged that the rural counties we represent would not be able to fund vital services like rural education, road maintenance and emergency care as long as enormous tracts of land within their boundaries were locked away under Federal control. We need to be very clear about the nature of the promise that was struck between Congress and rural forested counties. These funds were not designed to be a handout, and they are not part of any federally sponsored rural development program. They are an obligation. They are part of a compact between the Federal Government and the people of rural America in recognition of the difficulties created by large Federal ownership. This compact must be honored by the 110th Congress that we are currently in. The rural counties I represent, and I know this is true in other areas throughout the West, have sacrificed a great deal playing host to America's national forests. I don't think it is too much to ask for this Congress to set aside a fraction of our $2.9 trillion budget in order to keep our word to rural America. We need to act immediately to extend the Secure Rural Schools safety net so our rural counties can get out of crisis mode, and then we can all get back to working on a long-term solution to our forest health problems. Again, I would like to thank my colleagues here tonight for your efforts to extend the Secure Rural Schools program. I am committed to working with each of you until we are successful, and I ask other Members of the House to recognize the incredible hardships that will result if this legislation is not renewed.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join my fellow Californian in introducing the Homeownership for America's Veterans Act. This bill proposes to make an important change to our Nation's tax laws in order to assist thousands of veterans, in the State of California and elsewhere, realize the American dream of owning their own home. Currently, a provision in the federal tax code allows states to issue tax-preferred Qualified Veterans Mortgage Bonds, or QVMBs, to provide favorable financing on home mortgages for certain veterans. In California, these bonds are used to help provide low-cost mortgages through the California Department of Veterans Affairs, or Cal-Vet, home loan program. As written in the tax code, two of the five states that use QVMBs, California and Texas, are prohibited from using this bond-generated revenue to provide mortgages to veterans who entered military service after 1977. Obviously, this significantly limits the usefulness of these bonds to provide mortgages to subsequent generations of military servicemen and women. In fact, according to Cal-Vet's own estimations, only 4.1 percent of California's total veteran population is eligible for home loans financed through QVMBs. I want to thank my California colleague, Congresswoman Susan Davis, for her work on this important legislation. Like her, I believe it is important for us to open this bonding authority to allow QVMBs to be used to support home loans for more recent members of the armed forces, who have served our country so ably and with such determination. I look forward to continuing to work on this issue, and am pleased this bill has the strong support of California's veteran community, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the California Department of Veterans Affairs.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased we're discussing the growing problem of America's dependence on foreign sources of oil and gas, and the high prices that consumers are paying here at home. In the 109th Congress we made great strides in promoting energy independence through tax incentives for oil and gas exploration, improvement of outdated infrastructure and added research into renewable resources. But while the goal of ``energy security'' is a good one, I am concerned that today's bill moves us away from that objective. I frequently hear from constituents concerned about our growing dependence on foreign supplies. And rightly so--when we experienced the first ``energy crisis,'' foreign countries provided one, third of our energy needs. Thirty years later, that reliance has nearly doubled. H.R. 6 does not address this problem. Quite the opposite: Through increasing taxes, the legislation makes it more costly for U.S. firms to develop domestic supplies. This means our over-dependence on foreign supplies will increase even more. The policies we have already put in place are working: American production of natural gas is up 407 percent, and deep water oil production is up 386 percent. And billions of dollars that would otherwise go to hostile nations have been invested in renewable energy developed from open-loop biomass, geothermal and other resources. Madam Speaker, my constituents want a forward-thinking energy strategy that seeks new ways to meet our needs. Everyone agrees we should pursue ``energy independence.'' H.R. 6 moves us farther from this goal.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4. The fundamental question in today's debate is what produces better results, the free market or the Federal Government? Medicare part D was founded on a belief that free markets get results. It is a system in which private companies compete with each other to meet the needs of our senior citizens. These private companies negotiate with drug manufacturers to get lower prices, and the results have been impressive. When the Congress created part D, we expected the average premium to be around $35 a month. Yet, thanks to the power of competition, Medicare beneficiaries actually paid an average of $24 per month, and that number is going down to $22 in 2007. Mr. Speaker, I hope we can stop and think about what that means. In every other area of health care, costs are rising far faster than inflation. Where else have we seen an actual decrease in health care cost? At the same time, we can also see the results of a system in which the government imposes price controls or as today's legislation basically proposes. In Canada, a government-run health care system has resulted in long waiting lists for medical care and a massive exodus of talented physicians. In our own country, our brief experiment with price controls in the 1970s ended with disastrous gasoline shortages. Mr. Speaker, I hope this Congress will consider the results and vote for the system that gets proven results. I urge my colleagues to soundly reject this legislation.