Wally Herger

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. I reserve.

Mr. HERGER. I reserve my time to close as well on our side.

Mr. HERGER. Just myself to close on our side.

Mr. HERGER. I yield myself so much time as I may consume. I'd like to begin by just mentioning the last speaker, the gentlelady from Ohio, the Independent International Trade Commission estimates that Ohio's exports to Peru will grow by some 38 percent. And that 38 percent is in such areas as machinery equipment, chemical products, transportation equipment, computer and electronic equipment and plastic and rubber products. Mr. Speaker and Members, I wish to express my strong support for H.R. 3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act. The Peru TPA will eliminate or significantly reduce Peruvian tariffs and address other trade barriers to U.S. goods. That Peru TPA also is an important means to promote democracy and stability in Peru and will further strengthen our relations with this strong partner of ours. Today, nearly 6 months after reaching the May 10 bipartisan trade deal, we consider the Peru TPA on the House floor. I'm pleased for our farmers, ranchers, businesses, workers and consumers that this long- promised day is now a reality. The Peru TPA will provide significant reciprocal market access benefits for these constituent groups. The International Trade Commission estimates that the Peru TPA will increase U.S. exports to Peru by $1.1 billion. But U.S. imports from Peru will only increase by less than half that, or $439 million. The ITC also estimates that the Peru TPA will add $2.1 billion per year to the U.S. gross domestic product. According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Peru TPA's many benefits include the following: 80 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial goods will be duty free immediately, and all remaining tariffs eliminated within 10 years. More than two-thirds of U.S. farm exports to Peru will become duty free immediately, including beef, wheat, soybeans, tree nuts, such as almonds, and various fruits and vegetables, such as peaches. U.S. services firms will have substantial market access across Peru's service sectors, with very few exceptions. Almost all U.S. exports of information technology products will be duty free immediately, and there will be important protections for U.S. investors, intellectual property rights, worker rights and environment. In my home State of California, the Peru TPA will offer tremendous market opportunities for our exporters. In 2006, California's farmers and businesses exported roughly 180 million in goods to Peru, including computers and electronic machinery, metal products and agricultural products. The elimination of tariffs and other trade barriers will help support the nearly 20 percent of manufacturing jobs and roughly 135,000 agricultural-related jobs in California alone that depend on exports. The Peru TPA will also lead to a more substantial and reciprocal trading relationship between Peru and the United States. The current Andean trade preferences given by the United States to Peru have been important to its economic development and stability, but they provide little benefit to the U.S. exporters. Today, for example, 97 percent of Peru's exports to the United States are already duty free. But only 2.8 percent of Peru's tariff lines are duty free for U.S. exporters. The Peru TPA will level this uneven playing field. Given the importance of the Peru TPA as well as the pending free trade agreements with Panama and Colombia, I was pleased to participate in a recent bipartisan fact-finding trip to the region led by U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. This trip underscored to me that the Peru TPA will move our economic relationship to a new level and help make us even closer strategic allies. I want to close by reminding my colleagues that our work is not done today. The May 10 bipartisan trade deal was designed to pave the way for a new bipartisan approach to trade policy and consideration of all four pending FTAs, not just the Peru TPA. In fact, the May 10 deal amended all four pending FTAs, not just the Peru TPA. I urge the majority to now act on the commitments made with the May 10 deal and move the three pending free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and Korea. We must not let this unique moment pass us by, especially when the E.U., China, and other countries are strengthening their trade ties in Latin America and Asia and threaten to pull ahead. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to my good friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). I want to thank the chairman, Mr. Rangel, for your strong work and your leadership along with Chairman Levin of the Trade Subcommittee and the Democrat members on your side for working to have this bill come through the Ways and Means Committee with a unanimous ``aye'' vote. I commend you and for your many years of working in this area of fair trade. With that, with the addition of the 3 minutes I yield, I yield back my time for this evening.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, losing a job is one of the most disruptive events that can occur to a worker and a family. We should be helping these individuals to get back to work as soon as possible. That's why I support the trade adjustment assistance and why I introduced a short-term extension of the program to assist workers displaced by trade through December. Unfortunately, I cannot support today's bill. In addition to expanding the TAA program, which already costs the American taxpayers nearly $1 billion each year, the majority shuts out numerous Republican suggestions that would have instilled accountability and increased flexibility for workers. One provision of their bill eliminates a State's ability to choose the best employees to administer TAA by requiring so-called State merit-based employees to run the program. This means that the 25 States that currently use local employees or outside contractors like nonprofit or community-based groups to operate a more efficient and effective TAA program will no longer be able to do so and will be required to hire more government workers. I'm also amazed that the majority rejected our proposal to increase accountability by requiring States and organizations that receive TAA to meet performance measures. It should be the goal of all Members to see that taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely, and the lack of such measures is a fundamental shortcoming of the bill. This provision is included in the Republican substitute that we will offer later today. Far from forcing workers into just any old job, Republicans have worked to find constructive ways to increase TAA program flexibility so workers could have more options to train for a new job and have greater access to employment services. But, again, these suggestions were rejected by the majority. We all want to help unemployed workers to get back on their feet quickly. But TAA improvement, and especially an expansion of this magnitude, should have been considered in the context of expanding trade opportunities for all Americans through our pending free trade agreements, including Colombia, Panama and South Korea, and reauthorization of the trade promotion authority. Regrettably, we have no commitments from the majority on these important measures, despite months of work. I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 3920.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 3920 offered by Mr. McCrery and Mr. McKeon. In particular, I would like to focus on the provisions in this amendment that would provide TAA participants with quicker access and more flexible training options to obtain the skills they need to return to work as quickly as possible. H.R. 3920 contains some TAA training reform, but it is largely geared towards keeping people in TAA longer, and is costly. In contrast, this amendment provides much greater individual choice and more flexible access to training through a new approach designed to get people into training sooner and better equip them to get back to work more quickly. For example, this amendment would improve TAA participants' access to training and education by: one, providing New Economy Scholarships of up to $8,000 that a participant can use over a 4-year period in a range of training programs; and, secondly, authorizing $50 million for new capacity building grants for community colleges and other training providers to offer enhanced training to more TAA participants. This amendment also would provide TAA participants with more flexible training options that are not available under current law, including allowing participants to combine full-time work with either full-time or part-time training, or combine part-time work with either full-time or part-time training; and allowing training programs that lead to a license, certificate or community college degree and are linked to a high-demand occupation, as well as apprenticeship programs. Moreover, this amendment would enable TAA participants to begin training sooner, even prior to layoff. This amendment also allows workers to focus on a job search sooner, while receiving income support, without also having to be in training or obtain a training waiver, which is required today. This amendment also would encourage better allocation of current training funds for the States, which have not been fully used, by requiring the Department of Labor to report to Congress every 6 months on this funding allocation. Mr. Speaker, I believe this amendment makes meaningful training reforms to TAA that would provide more flexible options to participants and better enable them to gain the skills they need to return to work sooner. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, all of us support SCHIP and we all want to reauthorize it, but we need to put low-income kids first. This bill would expand the program to families making more than $60,000 a year. That is not low income. It is a majority of the households in America. There is a better way. Reauthorize SCHIP and keep it focused on truly needy children, and then tackle rising health care costs that are squeezing middle-class families. Tax credits could help 10\1/2\ million kids from middle-income families gain or keep their health care coverage. Millions more would benefit if families could purchase less expensive health plans from across State lines. Let's defeat this motion and get to work on making health care more affordable for all Americans.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 716. While the Internet offers a multitude of benefits, it can also pose threats, such as identity theft and online scams. It is important to raise awareness of these threats and how they can be avoided. Cybersecurity is also critical to our national security. A cyberattack against our Nation could cripple our communications, destroy our energy grids and damage our economy. We must take proactive steps today to prevent and respond to future attacks. I also commend the Air Force for establishing a Cyber Command. Our Nation must be able to defeat any adversary on tomorrow's cyberbattlefield. I thank my friend from Florida (Mr. Feeney) for yielding time, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H. Res. 106.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Tax Collection Responsibility Act. This legislation would unwisely eliminate an IRS program which collects otherwise uncollected tax debts, refusing as much as $2.2 billion in Federal revenue. In addition, this partisan measure does a disservice to the overwhelmingly bipartisan effort to repeal the 3 percent withholding burden before it takes effect. In less than 4 years, 3 percent of all payments made by a government to a business or individual providing goods or services will be unfairly withheld as a prepayment on taxes. This will needlessly reduce cash flows for thousands of small businesses across the U.S. Today's bill merely delays 3 percent withholding implementation for 1 year, but that does not solve this real and pressing problem. What Congress should do is follow the broader proposal my friend Kendrick Meek of Florida and I have introduced, repealing this withholding tax outright. Pairing a scaled-back 1-year delay with the majority's repeal of the private collection agency program wrongly splits the bipartisan, broad-based full repeal initiative. Mr. Speaker, the Meek-Herger proposal has 219 cosponsors from both parties. Further, the closed rule prohibits a Republican substitute that would have provided for consideration of the full 3 percent withholding repeal alone and on its own merit. I urge Members to reject this flawed bill.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on several measures that came before the House on Wednesday, September 26, 2007 because of illness. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 677, a resolution providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 52) making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008; ``no'' on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 678, a resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2693) to direct the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue a standard regulating worker exposure to diacetyl; ``aye'' on a motion to recommit H.J. Res. 52, a resolution making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, to committee; ``aye'' on final passage of H.J. Res. 52, a motion making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008; ``aye'' on an amendment by Mr. Wilson of South Carolina to H.R. 2693, the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act; and ``no'' on final passage of H.R. 2693, the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on several measures that came before the House on Tuesday, September 25, 2007 because of illness. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 1400, Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007; ``aye'' on H. Res. 584, Supporting the goals and ideals of National Life Insurance Awareness Month; ``aye'' on H. Con. Res. 210, Supporting the goals and ideals of Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month; ``aye'' on H. Res. 663, Supporting the goals and ideals of Veterans of Foreign Wars Day; ``aye'' on H. Res. 548, Expressing the ongoing concern of the House of Representatives for Lebanon's democratic institutions and unwavering support for the administration of justice upon those responsible for the assassination of Lebanese public figures opposing Syrian control of Lebanon; ``aye'' on H. Res. 642, Expressing sympathy and support for the people and governments of the countries of Central America, the Caribbean, and Mexico which have suffered from Hurricanes Felix, Dean, and Henriette and whose complete economic and fatality toll are still unknown; ``aye'' on H. Res. 557, Strongly condemning the United Nations Human Rights Council for ignoring severe human rights abuses in various countries, while choosing to unfairly target Israel by including it as the only country permanently placed on the Council's agenda; and no on H. Res. 675, On the question of tabling the motion to appeal the ruling of the chair. Further, I would have voted no on the previous question and no on adopting H. Res. 675, providing for the consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 976; ``aye'' on H. Res. 95, Supporting the goals and ideals of Campus Fire Safety Month; no on H.R. 976, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007; and ``aye'' on H. Res. 590, Supporting the goals and ideals of National Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, with nearly 47 million uninsured in America, rising health care costs, and a federal health entitlement system that is simply unsustainable in the long run, America is truly on the verge of a health crisis. Yet despite the looming fiscal insolvency of Medicare and other challenges facing U.S. health care, Congress is preparing now to approve one of the largest expansions of government health care in decades. Mr. Speaker, we must change course in today's debate, and address the root problems facing our health system. And true change can be achieved only through working together on a bipartisan level. It is for this very reason that I am pleased to join with my colleague from the other side of the aisle, Representative Ron Kind of Wisconsin, in introducing truly collaborative, bipartisan legislation that would help expand health coverage to millions of currently uninsured American taxpayers. Our legislation, the ``Equity for Our Nation's Self-Employed Act of 2007,'' would correct an inequity that currently exists in our tax laws to help make quality health care more affordable for millions of Americans. It achieves this by allowing the self- employed to fully deduct their health insurance premiums for the purposes of both income tax and self-employment tax. Although many consider themselves ``self-employed,'' only the owners of businesses that are organized as sole proprietorships pay the self- employment tax or SET. Across the U.S. there are more than 21 million sole proprietors who could be subject to some level of self-employment tax. In my own home State of California, there are more self-employed individuals than anywhere else in the country, with roughly 13 percent of the Nation's sole proprietorships, or more than 2.8 million self- employed individuals. The vast majority of the businesses owned by self-employed sole proprietors are small and micro-businesses with 10 or fewer employees. Despite their size, however, these businesses generate more than $800 billion in economic activity in the U.S. The self-employment tax serves as a proxy for Federal FICA payroll taxes, which other business combinations like C-corporations, limited liability partnerships and S-corporations withhold and pay on behalf of their employees. The SET tax rate is 15.3 percent, representing both the traditionally withheld employee share of 7.65 percent of wages (for Social Security and Medicare) plus the employer's matching share of 7.65 percent. Unlike other businesses, however, the SET applies to all income generated from the sole proprietorship. At the crux of the current disparity is that all businesses apart from sole proprietorships can deduct employee health care premiums as normal business expenses before taxes. While self-employed taxpayers may deduct 100 percent of their health premiums for regular income tax purposes, sole proprietorships frequently pay more for insurance simply because these expenses are then subjected to the SET of 15.3 percent. One of my constituents, a micro-business owner named Gloria, who lives in Redding, California, reported that she pays about $1,300 more on health insurance each year because of the SET. Another constituent, Tom, from Anderson, pays $900 more for health care each year because of this increased payroll tax. By extending the health deduction to the self-employment tax, we would level the playing field for sole proprietors like Gloria, Tom and the more than 2.8 million self- employed Californians who cannot currently deduct their health coverage costs as a business expense. Several of my sole proprietor constituents have commented on the rising costs of health care, and how the SET prohibits them from putting this extra amount they pay in taxes to better use expanding their business or purchasing more health coverage for themselves and their employees. Nationwide, more than half of all sole proprietors report that they are unable to purchase health insurance at all, citing affordability as a chief concern. Of these small business owners, more than 80 percent stated they would be more likely to purchase health insurance if it was deductible from payroll taxes through SET deductibility. Owning and operating a small business in the United States has always been and continues to be extremely risky, with many small businesses not surviving the first 5 years of operation. However, despite great challenges, small businesses provide nearly two-thirds of all new job creation in our country, employing tens of millions of workers and providing a higher standard of living for millions of American families. The difference between low or high taxes can make or break a firm, and mean the difference between profitability and continued entrepreneurial investment to survive, or going out of business. A recent report by the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy confirms this about the SET in particular, finding that extending the health insurance deduction for the SET actually increases the probability that a micro-business will remain in the market. Madam Speaker, around 60 percent of America's uninsured individuals work for small businesses that cannot afford to provide coverage. Our simple, bipartisan legislation would help millions of sole proprietors and their employees better afford coverage by allowing a tax deduction for 100 percent of health insurance expenses from payroll taxes, just like other businesses in the U.S. I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for his leadership on this legislation, and look forward to working to enact it.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on four bills brought up under Suspension of the Rules on Monday, September 24, 2007 because of an illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 193, a resolution recognizing all hunters across the United States for their continued commitment to safety; ``yea'' on H. Res. 668, a resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of the September 25, 1957, desegregation of Little Rock Central High School by the Little Rock Nine; ``yea'' on H.R. 1199, the Drug Endangered Children Act of 2007; and ``yea'' on H. Res. 340, a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives of the importance of providing a voice for the many victims (and families of victims) involved in missing persons cases and unidentified human remains cases.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1400, as amended to strengthen its goals and effect. The Iranian regime supports terrorism. Iran's President has called for Israel to be, and I quote, ``wiped off the map.'' Iranian special forces are fighting a ``proxy war'' against U.S. troops in Iraq and are training Iraqi Shiite extremists. Iran's uranium enrichment continues to fly in the face of several United Nations resolutions, and the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, reports that Iran could develop nuclear weapons in as few as 3 years. A multilateral strategy will most effectively block Iran's dangerous ambitions. The U.N., in particular, must adopt additional, stronger measures to stop this hostile regime dead in its tracks. I am also very encouraged by the recent statements of French President Sarkozy calling on France and the rest of Europe to adopt ``international'' and ``multilateral'' economic sanctions against Iran, in coordination with U.S. efforts. As I have said on this floor before, I question the effectiveness of unilateral sanctions because they often disturb the very multilateralism that we currently see taking shape against Iran. Careful drafting, however, can alleviate the disruption, and the Ways & Means Committee strengthened H.R. 1400 by inserting provisions that will preserve this growing international coalition. More specifically, H.R. 1400 maintains the President's discretion under current law not to impose import restrictions, if refraining would best serve the foreign policy purpose. To that end, Section 307 of this bill clarifies that the full ``authorities'' of IEEPA are implicated in Section 6(6) of the Iran Sanctions Act, not just the authority to impose import restrictions. A parallel rule of construction is included in Section 201. In addition, my Committee was careful to clarify in Section 202 that the bill's import restrictions apply only to the current regulation, so the President retains needed flexibility. Finally, Section 406 of the bill as introduced and reported was stripped and replaced with a new funding source. For these reasons, I urge support of H.R. 1400, as amended.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3375, a bill to extend the Trade Adjustment Assistance program by three months beyond September 30th, when it would otherwise expire. I introduced this bill to allow Members adequate time to review and carefully consider the range of existing and forthcoming proposals to reform and expand this very complex and important program. As part of this review, our Committee must consider whether any expansions would create duplicative federal programs and how any such expansions to the TAA program would be covered under the ``pay-go'' rules. TAA can be a valuable tool for retraining people and helping return them to work quickly, but the program is in need of reform to do that job better. Moreover, TAA is an expensive federal program, costing taxpayers nearly $1 billion each year, but providing assistance only to some 54,000 workers per year, amounting to $18,000 per worker. In light of this, any expansion of TAA must be done in a cost conscious manner focusing on actual results. At the same time, we must be mindful that TAA is just one tool in a larger policy toolbox to help workers, families, and communities adjust to the new global economy. TAA is not the proper response to all job loss. Today, billions of dollars are provided annually through various Federal programs, including TAA, to help Americans who lose their jobs so that they can adapt and return to productive jobs. However, TAA and these other decades-old Federal programs need to be reformed to improve the services that they provide to address job loss due to trade, globalization, technology, and other reasons. I look forward to working with my Republican and Democratic colleagues in an effort to develop an effective, fiscally sound, and comprehensive approach that would help more American workers, regardless of the reason for their job loss, get retrained and re-enter the workforce as quickly as possible so they can better adapt to the changing global economy

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1199, the Drug Endangered Children Act. The Drug Endangered Children program is critically important to my congressional district and others that have been plagued by the meth scourge. Thanks to the outstanding leadership of Susan Webber-Brown, Butte County, California, was one of the first jurisdictions in the country to create a Drug Endangered Children team to focus on the safety and protection of children during law enforcement operations. However, due in part to a lack of federal support, the state of California terminated DEC grant funding in 2003. Since then, Butte and other counties have struggled to keep their programs up and running. As a former chairman of the House subcommittee dealing with child welfare and foster care issues, I have heard countless heartbreaking stories of children trapped in some of the most awful living conditions imaginable as a result of their parents' or guardians' involvement with illegal drugs. The Drug Endangered Children program helps rescue children from these dangerous environments, provide for their immediate physical and psychological needs, and give them hope for a better life. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting to reauthorize this vitally needed program.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 873, I inadvertently voted ``nay.'' I meant to vote ``aye.'' Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mrs. Biggert

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. I would like to thank the ranking member for engaging in this colloquy. As you know, the manager's amendment was released yesterday afternoon, and it contains language concerning section 337 proceedings before the U.S. International Trade Commission. However, this language was not considered by the Committee on Ways and Means, even though it is squarely in our jurisdiction. I am aware that Chairman Rangel and Chairman Conyers have exchanged letters in which Chairman Conyers has acknowledged that this issue is within the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means committee. I will support a request for conferees to be named from the Ways and Means committee. As you know, section 337 proceedings are very complex, and we must ensure that the full ramifications of this language are clearly understood. As ranking member of the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, I hope that you would agree with me that these provisions warrant further analysis and ask that you would work with me and other members of the committee in conference to ensure that these provisions are thoroughly understood as the bill moves through the legislative process.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, every time I visit with constituents, like most of you here in Congress, I hear about high gas prices. And they're right. Gas prices are too high. Prices in our free market are governed by supply and demand. Record high prices result from, among other things, the fact that we don't produce enough of our own supply domestically and are therefore at the mercy of unpredictable and often unstable foreign producers. Thirty years ago, when we had our first oil crisis, we were dependent on foreign sources of oil for only about one-third of our supplies. Today it is roughly two-thirds of our supply. A sure way to fix this situation is to encourage environmentally safe oil exploration and production here in the United States. But this is the opposite of what today's legislation seeks. In fact, today's bill proposes to raise taxes on domestic oil and gas exploration by nearly $12 billion. This discourages investment in U.S. supplies and will, over time, increase our dependence even more on foreign sources of fossil fuels. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote against higher gas prices and against H.R. 2776, this ill-conceived energy legislation.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the ``CHAMP Act.'' I do support averting the 10 percent cut in physician payments scheduled for next year, and I am pleased that the bill reforms the Medicare geographic cost payments index for California and holds rural counties harmless through 2010--although I would have preferred to see a permanent fix so that the physicians I represent do not face the prospect of a 5 to 7 percent cut a few years down the road. However, I am very troubled by the overall thrust of the CHAMP Act, which is to expand big government health care at the expense of competition and consumer choice. This bill would effectively destroy the Medicare Advantage program, especially in rural areas like the district I represent. I would like to read to my colleagues from a letter I received just the other day from one of my constituents, Kathleen Lopez of Marysville, California. Kathleen writes, ``I chose a Medicare Advantage plan because I receive Social Security benefits less than $700 net per month; our annual income hovers around $20 thousand. This plan encourages preventive care, has Plan D Medicare, has some vision and dental coverage. . . . This type of plan eliminates costly monthly expenses for health coverage as well as prescription drug coverage.'' Over 4,500 other senior citizens in my district are receiving similar benefits. Most--if not all--of them will lose their benefits under this bill. Mr. Speaker, not only does this bill sharply reduce incentives for Medicare Advantage plans to offer coverage to low-income rural seniors like Kathleen Lopez, it also imposes new constraints and regulations to prevent Medicare Advantage plans from offering better deals. The message of this bill is ``Washington knows best.'' Instead of promoting competition and choice, we are going to push everybody into a one-size- fits-all plan. That message is reinforced with the massive expansion of SCHIP that takes kids from middle-class and possibly even upper-class families off private insurance and puts them into a government program. Mr. Speaker, all of us support reauthorizing SCHIP. Everyone supports providing health care for low income children. But let us be clear: That is not the question we are discussing today. What we are debating is whether to turn SCHIP into a massive new entitlement under which every child in America--even if their families are well-off, even if they already have good health coverage--can become eligible for health care provided by the Federal Government. Don't be fooled--this bill is the first step toward the Federal Government taking over health care. Some members who were closely involved in writing this bill have even openly stated their support for creating a government-run health care system and literally banning market-driven health care providers. We have a decision before us: We can move toward a 21st-century, patient-centered health care system driven by competition, choice, and innovation. Or we can go backwards toward a system of socialized medicine, like the ones that are crumbling in Europe or the one that Canadian doctors come to our country to escape. Mr. Speaker, this bill goes in the wrong direction, and I urge my colleagues to reject it. Ms. Pryce of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this legislation wasted an opportunity to reauthorize a bipartisan health care program for low- income children. I support SCHIP and would welcome its renewal and improvement. But this House is abandoning its mission of providing needed health care coverage for low-income children who otherwise would go without, and instead enrolling millions of middle class families--even adults--with income upwards of $80,000, some who already have private insurance, in this government-run health care plan. Why are we pushing our middle class into government health care when there are so many low-income kids who still need help? And why are we asking seniors to pay for it? In Ohio, 70 percent of uninsured children who are currently eligible for SCHIP are not enrolled in the program. Congress should work to cover these children before it pursues this overly ambitious and costly entitlement expansion on the backs of our senior citizens. In my district, some 13,000 seniors would be dropped from their Medicare plan to pay for this bill. Additionally, many of the services seniors rely on most will be cut under this bill--from cuts to skilled nursing facilities, to oxygen, to wheelchairs, to home health care. This is simply unnecessary and unfair. I have devoted much of my career in the House to giving a voice to children and promoting programs to help them. It is therefore truly unfortunate and disappointing that the Democrat majority has rushed this bill to the floor, with no Republican input and no chance of improving it through the amendment process. And, I regret, that due to this unnecessary over-reaching, one-sided legislative process, I was compelled to oppose this irresponsible bill. We can do better. Our kids and our seniors deserve better.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the CHAMP Act. The message of this bill is, Washington knows best. I recently received a letter from one of my over 4,500 seniors in my district who could lose their Medicare Advantage benefits under this bill. Kathleen Lopez of Marysville, California, writes, ``I chose a Medicare Advantage plan because I receive Social Security benefits less than $700 net per month. This plan encourages preventive care, has some vision and dental coverage. This type of plan eliminates costly monthly expenses for health coverage.'' In addition to slashing Medicare Advantage, this bill contains massive expansion of SCHIP that takes kids from middle-class and even upper-class families off private insurance and puts them into a government-paid program. All of us support reauthorization of SCHIP. Everyone supports health care for low-income children. But what we are debating here today is whether to turn this successful anti-poverty program into an open-ended entitlement with effectively no limits on eligibility. Mr. Speaker, we have a choice. We can move towards a 21st century patient-centered health care system driven by competition and innovation, or we can go backwards towards a system of socialized medicine like the one that the Canadian doctors come here to escape. Mr. Speaker, this bill goes in the wrong direction. I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 957. On May 23, 2007, the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, reported that Iran is continuing to enrich uranium in blatant defiance of three U.N. resolutions. The IAEA also concluded that Iran could develop nuclear weapons in as few as three years. Iran's President has called for Israel to be, and I quote, ``wiped off the map.'' The prospect of this extreme regime developing nuclear arms represents a grave threat to the United States and its allies in the Middle East, Europe, and globally. I believe the international community must stand united against Iran. We and our allies must do everything possible on a multilateral basis-- diplomatically, politically, and economically--to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms capability. The United Nations, in particular, must adopt additional, stronger measures to stop this hostile regime dead in its tracks. Although I question the effectiveness of unilateral sanctions, I believe that drafted correctly, they can occasionally provide a useful supplement to multilateral efforts. H.R. 957 is one such occasion, as it maintains the President's discretion under IEEPA to consider on a situation-by-situation basis whether the imposition of unilateral sanctions would be the wisest course. For these reasons, I urge support of H.R. 957.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I intend to support the conference report; however, I want to share my serious concerns over a provision requiring all foreign ports to scan 100 percent of commercial cargo destined for the United States. First, this policy was not recommended by the 9/11 Commission. Instead, it called for selecting the most practical and cost effective ways of improving security focusing on areas of greatest risk. I believe 100 percent scanning would undermine our current risk based approach as endorsed by the SAFE Port Act last fall, which I supported. We are also putting the cart before the horse given the ongoing SAFE Port Act pilot project that tasked 100 percent scanning at three foreign ports. This is testing our technological ability to scan all cargo and the effectiveness of doing so. Implementing 100 percent scanning could significantly disrupt trade flows and lead to similar mandates or other actions against U.S. exports in our ports. Finally, I wonder who will pay for this mandate inside and outside the United States. We must monitor developments leading to the implementation of 100 percent cargo scanning in 5 years and assess if legislative changes are needed. I also will be watching to see how U.S. shippers, importers, retailers, and our trading partners are able to comply with the mandate.

Mr. HERGER

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.