Wally Herger

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, counties and schools in my district need a lifeline. They don't need partisanship. They don't need a talking point. They need leadership, which will result in an actual law being passed to help them. Secure rural schools has rested on hard work by grassroots supporters and bipartisan efforts in Congress. So why are we moving a bill that divides our coalition by removing PILT and tying secure rural schools to a controversial offset that we know will fail in the Senate? This bill does nothing to help our counties and schools because it has no chance of becoming law. Yesterday, there was an effort to rescue this legislation with a compromise that would extend a lifeline to rural counties and every American through new domestic oil production and lower gas prices. That proposal was rejected because we were told the majority will not allow consideration of any bill that increases domestic oil supplies. America and our counties and schools deserve better. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I want to express my support for the tax relief included in today's legislation, provisions such as the research and development tax credit and the active financing exception that help our employers stay competitive and the extension of the renewable energy tax incentives. However, I cannot support this bill as written. First, it continues the negative trend the Democrat majority has followed by permanently increasing taxes to pay for temporary extensions of existing tax law. Given the wide-ranging tax relief that is set to expire in the coming years, the Democrats' PAYGO logic would require us to raise taxes by more than $3.5 trillion between now and 2018. Secondly, the bill ``dodges'' extending the middle class alternative minimum tax patch, without which 24 million taxpayers will pay an average of $2,400 in AMT taxes in 2008 alone. We waited until the 11th hour to extend this relief in 2007. We cannot do so again. Tragically, the House Democrats refuse to work on these issues on a bipartisan basis. Their tax increase approach has been tried and tried again, and for what we have seen in the other body and from what the White House has said, it will fail again. The longer we delay passing a realistic extenders bill, the longer American employers and taxpayers go without this critical tax relief. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.

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

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently missed rollcall No. 345. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I'm troubled by the housing catch-all bill before the House of Representatives today from a commonsense, pro- American taxpayer position. The bill would enable the already troubled FHA to take on an additional $300 million in distressed mortgage liabilities, loans that have a good chance of going into default. This effectively transfers risk from those holding bad loans to those taxpayers who made prudent decisions in the first place. More than nine out of 10 mortgage holders make payments on time. They would now be on the hook for the bad mortgage debt, as will renters saving for a first-time home and those who own their own homes outright. This bill sends the signal that there are no real consequences for poor lending or borrowing practices, and encourages more of the same behavior that led us here in the first place. Further, to offset some of the tax giveaways in the bill, the Democrat majority proposes billions of dollars in what amounts to a retroactive tax increase on American employers with operations in foreign markets. What our economy really needs is tax policies that foster greater, not less, competitiveness for the U.S. employers. Finally, it is truly disappointing that the Democrat majority has chosen to bring this bill up in a lock down, unamendable manner. I urge my colleagues to reject this measure.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a special group of veterans, those that served in Operation Overlord or D-day as it is commonly referred to. On June 6, 1944, an allied force of over 150,000 American, British, Canadian, Free French, and Polish troops landed on a 50-mile stretch of French coastline heavily-fortified by German forces. President Franklin D. Roosevelt referred to the assault as a ``mighty endeavor'' as it included more than 13,000 aircraft, 137,000 jeeps, trucks, and half- tracks, 16 million tons of supplies, and the largest armada ever assembled in history with over 5,000 vessels. Over 70,000 American servicemen participated in the D-day invasion and began what General Eisenhower referred to as the allied march to victory. The allied forces suffered about 9,760 casualties, of which 6,605 were Americans. World War II shaped the 20th century and forever changed the course of world history. Recognizing the brave men and women of America's Armed Forces that participated in the war is a special privilege. As members of the greatest generation fade into the past, we should work diligently to thank them for their sacrifice as they marched on behalf of freedom and secured the world from tyranny. Prime Minister Winston Churchill said it best in 1940 while addressing the British people during the Battle of Britain when he remarked, ``Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few.'' America owes a great debt to its men and women in uniform and by recognizing the contributions of previous generations, we ensure that their sacrifices are never forgotten. It is with great pride and heartfelt gratitude that I recognize the D-day veterans residing in California's Second Congressional District and all of America's veterans for protecting the values and traditions of our great Nation. May God Bless America, our veterans, and those currently serving in the Armed Forces.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 237, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, as Americans send their checks to the IRS today, they have a number of concerns. There are the dozens of tax provisions that expired last year and have not yet been extended adding to economic uncertainty. There is the inefficiency of many Federal agencies resulting in waste of hard-earned tax dollars, and there are the entitlement programs that threaten to double the Federal tax burden over the coming decades if they are not reformed. All of these issues Congress should be considering this Tax Day. One complaint I have never heard from my constituents is that the IRS doesn't ask them for enough information. Yet the legislation before us would impose burdensome new reporting requirements on 5 million Americans with health savings accounts. Although Congress has held no hearings to determine whether misuse of HSA funds is a real problem, these requirements would make HSAs less convenient for consumers and could lead financial institutions to stop offering HSAs. Ironically, this bill would also repeal a program that collects bad tax debts. The majority's message seems to be that if you're not paying your taxes, we will let you off the hook, but if you follow the rules, we will increase your burden of compliance. Madam Speaker, that is the wrong message to send this Tax Day. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. HERGER. I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, Federal law requires local governments to cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Local law enforcement authorities may turn over individuals who have been apprehended if the police believe they are not legally present in the United States. Unfortunately, many local governments flaunt this requirement and openly boast that they refuse to cooperate with the Federal Government in helping to enforce our immigration laws establishing an irresponsible precedent and frustrating our shared goal of having safe and secure borders. As you know, taxpayers all across the country subsidize local governments through a provision of Federal law that permits States and localities to issue debt that is exempt from Federal taxes. The motion presents the Members of Congress with a simple question: Is it reasonable to put some strings on this subsidy? If adopted, the motion would clarify that the Federal tax subsidy does not apply to new debt issued by States or localities that declare themselves by statute or other manner to be a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants. In other words, having self-helped themselves out of helping the Federal Government address the growing burden of illegal immigrants, then they should not expect American taxpayers to subsidize their debt. Madam Speaker, on April 15, we are reminded again about the many Americans who are playing by the rules, yet still feel the squeeze on their family budgets, particularly at tax time. Isn't it only fair that we ask our city mayors and county boards to do the same? This brings me to the second piece of our motion to recommit. Many American families benefit from the Earned Income Tax Credit. It has helped millions of low-income families help make ends meet, though its cost to the Treasury is not insubstantial. Studies have often showed that the earned income tax credit is overclaimed by as much as 30 percent. In other words, many of those who receive the benefit are not actually entitled to it. As the underlying bill includes a provision directing the IRS to conduct outreach to inform individuals that they may be eligible for the earned income tax credit, the motion would add language directing the IRS to improve its efforts to identify individuals who may be ineligible for the EITC on account of their citizenship status. Madam Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit. While I am greatly concerned about the message sent by the underlying bill that somehow we are going to take away an effective tool to ensure we all pay our fair share of taxes, this motion helps correct that wrong-headed tilt by trying to prevent tax benefits from going to illegal aliens and cities and States who shelter them from our immigration laws. I urge passage of the motion. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Well, I want to thank my good friend, Mr. Dreier, for setting this up this evening. This is so incredibly important. It's important to our Nation, it's important to our workers at a time when we're seeing our economy dipping, when we need to be able to produce jobs. And we look at how we produce jobs. Since last year, some 27 percent of our increase in gross domestic product came from exports. It's projected that just this year of our increase in gross domestic product, some 40 percent will be again from exports. And I wish it weren't true, but it seems like perhaps the best kept secret in our Nation today is that the United States is the largest trading nation in the world. We're the largest exporting nation in the world. I represent, as my good friend knows, a very rich agricultural district north of Sacramento in northern California.

Mr. HERGER. One of the richest agriculture areas in the world, second largest rice producing district. Some 60 percent of all the dried plums in the world, prunes, are grown there, walnuts, almonds, these specialty crops. And America cannot consume all that we produce. As a matter of fact, one-third of all that we produce we need to be able to export. And to be able to see, again, talking about Colombia, what this does for American workers, we just heard about Caterpillar from our good friend from Illinois (Mr. Weller) just earlier in his district, the thousands that it affects. And so it affects in the district I represent. Right now, because of our duty free status for the Andean nations, which we've gone in to try to help Colombia, Colombia was not always this great nation where some 42,000 former paramilitary, as we were talking about earlier, have gone from fighting the country to now being part of the country and supporting them. As we know, it wasn't always that way. And so some years ago we gave these Andean nations, including Colombia, Peru, Panama, and others, the ability to be able to export into the United States duty free, duty free, but yet we still have export duties, some as high as 60, 70 percent, going into their country. And what this free trade agreement would do is it would be able to give us the same access to their markets that they currently have to ours, to our rice, to our walnuts, to our wheat, to our corn, to other commodities that are so very, very important. So it is important what we're doing. It's important not only for, we were discussing the change in Colombia itself, which is our strongest ally in South America; we cannot turn our back on them, we cannot slap them in the face. And Madam Speaker, I would like to place into the Record some of these editorials that you were speaking about, Mr. Dreier, for the Record. [From the New York Times, Apr. 12, 2008] Time for the Colombian Trade Pact American workers are understandably anxious. Their incomes went nowhere through six years of economic growth. Many are losing their jobs as the economy slips into recession. Yet concern about workers' plight should not lead Congressional Democrats to reject the trade agreement with Colombia. This deal would benefit the American economy and further the nation's broader interests in Latin America. It is time for Congress to ratify it. The trade pact would produce clear benefits for American businesses and their workers. Most Colombian exports are exempt from United States' tariffs. American exports, however, face high Colombian tariffs and would benefit as the so-called trade promotion agreement brought them down to zero. The deal also would strengthen the institutional bonds tying the United States to Colombia, one of America's few allies in an important region that has become increasingly hostile to the United States' interests. Perhaps most important, the deal would provide a tool for Colombia's development, drawing investment and helping the nation extricate itself from the mire of poverty that provides sustenance to drug trafficking and a bloody insurgency. Violence in Colombia is way too high. We remain very concerned over the killing of trade unionists by right-wing paramilitary groups. Last year, we advised Congress not to ratify the trade agreement until Colombia demonstrated progress in investigating the murders and prosecuting and convicting their perpetrators. Though by no means ideal, the situation today has improved. Thirty-nine trade unionists were killed last year, down from 197 in 2001, the year before the government of Alvaro Uribe came to office. Prosecutors obtained 36 convictions for the murder of trade unionists--up from 11 in 2006 and only one in 2001. The budget of the prosecutor general's office has increased every year. Last year, it created a special unit to prosecute labor murders that has obtained 13 sentences. Pressure from the United States Congress has contributed to this progress, nudging the Colombian government with its offer that gains on the human rights front would lead to ratification of the trade agreement. Washington must sustain the pressure to ensure the energetic prosecution of crimes by paramilitary thugs and further reduce violence against union members. It has a powerful tool to do so: about $600 million a year in mostly military aid for Colombia to combat drug trafficking. The money must be approved by Congress every year. Rejecting or putting on ice the trade agreement would reduce the United States' credibility and leverage in Colombia and beyond. In a letter last year to Congressional Democrats, a group of Democratic heavyweights from the Clinton administration and previous Congresses wrote: ``Walking away from the Colombia trade agreement or postponing it until conditions are perfect would send an unambiguous signal to our friends and opponents alike that the United States is an unreliable partner without a vision for cooperation in our hemisphere.'' It would serve human rights in Colombia no good. Unfortunately, the agreement has become entangled in political jockeying between the White House and Democrats. The Democrats are right to demand assistance for American workers, and the Bush administration should work with Congress to expand the safety net for workers displaced by globalization. But this should not stop the Colombian trade pact from coming to fruition.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, this procedural vote, if it is successful, Congress would be rebuffing the Colombia agreement through technical gimmicks and rejecting a level playing field for American workers. Colombian workers and producers already have free access to the U.S. markets, but we don't have reciprocity. Our manufacturers and farmers need this agreement to sell their products, create jobs, and compete against foreign producers. A vote for this rule is a vote against American workers, period. Since the agreement was signed nearly 500 days ago, congressional Republicans and the White House have tried to work with the Democratic majority to approve this agreement. We reached a bipartisan consensus nearly a year ago to ensure congressional consideration of this agreement. In sending up the agreement, the President said that he was open to continuing discussions with the Democrats. The Democratic leadership, through this rule, has firmly shut the door to any discussions. Members should be keenly aware of the very negative foreign policy ramifications of this vote. This rule would be cheered by belligerent leftist guerillas abetted by Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez who seek to undermine the democratically elected Colombian government with menacing ramifications. This rule is a public slap in the face to a loyal ally at the epicenter of a philosophical war between democracy and totalitarianism, capitalism, and socialism. President Uribe made it very clear that the best way to support Colombia's struggle for economic and political security is to pass this agreement. Today's action would trounce that plea and embolden the foes of democracy. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 167, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, now that the Colombia trade agreement is before Congress, I hope that all Members will weigh its benefits carefully and approve it with a strong bipartisan up-or-down vote. The United States is the largest manufacturer and exporter in the world and new markets are essential to our workers, 42 percent of whom are employed by companies that are involved with trade. The Colombia trade agreement would level the playing field for American workers and grant our exporters the same fair access that Colombian producers already enjoy into the U.S. market. It would also strategically strengthen Colombia's fight against narcoterrorists and help them reject the influence of Venezuela's anti-American strong man, Hugo Chavez. I urge support of the U.S.-Colombia TPA.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement means growth and more jobs for the largest exporter and manufacturing nation in the world, the United States. Colombia already gets free access to our market. The agreement levels the playing field while bolstering the economy of our strongest South American ally. Colombia's government has a strong track record of reducing all violence, including attacks against union members. As the Washington Post editorialized on Monday, a vote for Colombia ``would show Latin America that a staunch U.S. ally will be rewarded for improving its human rights record and resisting the anti-American populism of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.'' Madam Speaker, this agreement merits approval by the Congress soon.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Chairman, we are now in year two of the Democrat majority. For the second year in a row they're proposing a budget that calls for the largest tax increase in American history, $683 billion significantly more than last year's budget. For our constituents, this means eliminating the lower marginal tax rates, a new penalty on marriage, a lower child tax credit, and new taxes on investment and retirement savings. In California, taxpayers can look forward to an additional $3,331 in taxes. Meanwhile, anticipating a tax hike, our Nation's employers would think twice before hiring that next worker or investing in new infrastructure. Madam Chairman, we need permanent tax relief, not higher taxes. What's more, this Democrat budget fails to address the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare. Every year we do nothing, as prescribed in the budget before us, our future debt goes up by another $2 trillion. Without reform, our three largest entitlement programs will keep growing until they crowd out everything else in the Federal budget, from national defense to transportation, to assistance for the poor. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this budget and support our more responsible Republican alternative.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the work and accomplishments of a true American hero and patriot, Larry Juanarena, a constituent of mine from Chico, California. For over five decades, Mr. Juanarena, has helped and inspired the residents of Chico. Mr. Juanarena's work has touched citizens in many sectors of the community. From the Salvation Army, 4-H, to law enforcement and emergency response, Mr. Juanarena is known for providing assistance to those in need. Mr. Juanarena has touched many lives in his community, and has been highly decorated for his dedication and service to his fellow citizens. Mr. Juanarena is probably best known for his efforts in supporting our Nation's troops and veterans from all wars and conflicts. Having served in the United States Air Force as a crew chief on a B-36 bomber, Mr. Juanarena continues his fight for freedom by supporting the families of our deployed soldiers and warriors through his work with the National Guard Family Assistance Program. Mr. Juanarena's Annual Red, White and Blue dinner has improved the lives of our guard families by providing financial assistance to those in need as they struggle to meet household obligations while their loved ones fight for our great Nation. Mr. Juanarena continues to be an extraordinary individual who makes significant and lasting contributions to our community through his civic minded leadership and can-do spirit. Mr. Juanarena exemplifies the notion of responsible citizenship and through his charitable work has touched the lives of many in our community. Mr. Juanarena's selfless actions have inspired a community and demonstrated that one person can make a difference when acting from the heart. I am privileged to have a friend in Larry Juanarena, and I am extremely grateful for his service to our troops, veterans, and our community-at-large. It is a great privilege to celebrate and honor the accomplishments of a true American hero and patriot.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the record with respect to Mr. Stark's comments about Shasta Regional Medical Center. First, the hospital did not close. Second, the malpractice to which he refers occurred under the previous ownership of the hospital, then known as Redding Medical Center. The hospital did not have physician investment at that time. The individuals who were found guilty of fraud and malpractice were punished appropriately and are no longer affiliated with Shasta Regional Medical Center. The new ownership of that facility has performed an invaluable service to the local community by taking over a failing hospital and working to rebuild its reputation, and they deserve the thanks of every member of Congress for that service.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 92, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage every Member of Congress to ask their constituents one simple question: Are your health insurance premiums high enough yet? Because this bill will make them even higher. We all want to improve access to mental health treatment. But the legislation before us could force some employers to drop mental health benefits altogether. Under this bill, plans are actually prohibited from covering treatment for depression, or potentially even a program to help someone quit smoking, unless they agree to cover literally everything in the book. I am especially concerned by the offset that effectively bans physician investment in hospitals. I am concerned that this provision could have a devastating impact on access to high quality health care. For example, there are just two hospitals in the city of Redding, California, in my northern California district. One of them nearly shut down a few years ago. It was bought by a company that specializes in turning around failing hospitals. Part of their strategy was to give the physicians who work at the hospital a partial ownership stake. They were successful. As a result, a vital community hospital is still open in a largely underserved area. This so-called ``offset'' would subject it to crippling new regulations, and it could doom other struggling hospitals to closure. Vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. But it leaves a carveout because it doesn't touch or affect Hugo Chavez.