Wally Herger

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I represent one of the richest agricultural districts in the world in Northern California, in the northern Sacramento Valley. And this CAFTA agreement will create important new export opportunities for the Northern California farmers and ranchers I represent. Three nations have already ratified this one-of-a-kind agreement. However, if this enacting legislation fails, the prospects of approving any similar agreement for the Central American countries fail as well. Placed in a broader historical context, in May of 2000, I joined 308 of my 435 colleagues in lowering or eliminating completely the tariffs on products entering the U.S. from CAFTA nations. At the time there was no reciprocal treatment, and our U.S. products continued to face high tariffs in CAFTA nation markets. The ratifying bill now before us will immediately zero out tariffs on 50 percent of U.S. agricultural products exported to the region, with the remaining scheduled to be reduced and eliminated over time. This is vitally important to all U.S. agriculture, especially in my home State. California produces 350 different agricultural commodities and is America's largest agricultural exporting State. When fully implemented, it is estimated that CAFTA could help boost U.S. agriculture exports by $1.5 billion. I firmly believe trade must be a two-way street. Currently, our Nation's agricultural exports like rice, almonds, pistachios, and dried plums, grown in my district, face average tariffs of 35 to 60 percent. As I previously stated, we already allow 99 percent of CAFTA nations' imports duty free. Mr. Speaker, CAFTA will level the playing field for American agriculture and will help producers from California and other States gain valuable new export opportunities. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to approve this measure.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I believe it is critical that we seek out abuses in existing agreements, and reform such laws that are detrimental to U.S. producers. Such is currently the case with unfair honey imports from China. In my northern California Congressional District, honey and honeybees play a critical role in pollinating many of our important export crops, including almonds. Because Chinese ``new shippers'' are allowed to circumvent antidumping orders by posting bonds, the honey industry in California and nationwide faces serious and continuing price declines, making it difficult for honey producers to provide bees for pollination. This bill would suspend the bonding privilege for a three-year period. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues, Representative English, Chairman Shaw and Chairman Thomas for their work on this matter.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Again I thank the gentleman. You brought up the agreement of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, with Canada and with Mexico. And again, it was so tongue-in-cheek, it was so detrimental that we more than doubled our trade to both of these countries who are our major trading partners now, and we see our unemployment rate at one of the lowest levels in our Nation's history, right at 5 percent. So if these trade agreements are so bad for our country, why are we seeing such incredibly dramatic positive results because of them?

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) for his leadership on this incredibly crucial issue of trade. As the gentleman mentioned, California is the richest agricultural State in the Nation; actually, the richest agricultural area in the world. The Imperial Valley, the San Joaquin Valley, the Sacramento Valley, which is part of what I represent, north of Sacramento, and more than 250 different major commodities come from California. Again, I thank the gentleman for his active role in getting the facts out, the truth out about trade. We are the largest trading Nation in the world, bar none other. And in the United States we have very low, and many times almost nonexistent, barriers for other countries to be able to trade to the United States. Yet we see very major trading barriers to other countries. So it is really win-win when we have an agreement such as CAFTA that can help bring down their barriers. I would like to reemphasize the importance of CAFTA to farmers and ranchers, both in my home State of California and in the greater United States. Especially now, as we fast approach a vote in the House on CAFTA-ratifying legislation, it is important to note a few points on this agreement in general. First, CAFTA was negotiated by all countries in the agreement, and already three have ratified it. Secondly, CAFTA is the only legislation of its kind that will come before the Congress. If it fails, the prospects of approving any similar agreement for the Central American countries and the Dominican Republic fail as well. Finally, CAFTA has to be considered with some degree of historical context. In May 2000, I joined 308 of our 435 colleagues in the House to lower or eliminate tariffs on products entering the U.S. from CAFTA nations. At the time there was no reciprocal treatment. In other words, the U.S. products would continue to face high tariffs and other barriers to entry in CAFTA nation markets. The CAFTA-ratifying agreement soon to come before us will immediately zero out tariffs on 50 percent of U.S. agricultural products exported to the region, with the remaining schedule to be eliminated in 10 years. The American Farm Bureau estimates that this could mean an increase in U.S. agricultural exports of $1.5 billion per year. In California, exports of farm products help boost both farm prices and income generated in the agricultural sector. Taken together with jobs, both on and off the farm, agriculture employs in California alone 129,560 workers, including food processing, storage, and transportation. Agriculture exports account for roughly $8.2 billion, or about 30 percent of the total export product of California. CAFTA implementation would increase those exports. As the Nation's largest producer and exporter of dairy products, with cash receipts of over $4 billion, California dairy producers would benefit greatly from reductions of the current duties imposed in CAFTA countries, which can be as high as 60 percent. As our Nation's leading exporter of fruits, California fruit producers too would benefit from CAFTA passage. Grapes, for example, are the State's third largest source of farm cash receipts. Current duties on grapes can reach 20 percent in some CAFTA countries and could grow as high as 135 percent under WTO rules. Producers and processors would benefit from the immediate elimination of duties on grapes and raisins in all CAFTA nations. California peaches grown in my district, a nearly $250 million industry, would benefit from elimination of duties on both fresh and canned peaches immediately. Pears would also gain immediate duty-free access under CAFTA. Mr. Speaker, California is the leading producer of tree nuts in the United States, accounting for over $2 billion in farm cash receipts. California almonds, walnuts, pistachio producers would benefit from the immediate duty-free access in all CAFTA countries. Current duties on those products can reach 20 percent. With over $1.7 billion in cash receipts, California lettuce producers would benefit from immediate duty elimination in Costa Rica and duty phase-out in most other Central American countries within 5 years. The California tomato and broccoli industries would see similar tariff elimination. Another crop, California rice, which is a major commodity in my district, currently faces duties of up to 60 percent. As the Nation's second largest rice exporter, California rice producers would benefit from the immediate market access of 400,000 metric tons of U.S. rice in CAFTA countries. As the Nation's second largest cotton exporter, California cotton would benefit from immediate market access worth up to $73.1 million. For beef, too, CAFTA passage brings with it positive economic prospects. With cash receipts of nearly $1.6 billion, California would see tariffs reduced from as high as 30 percent to zero. Tariffs on some cuts of meat will be eliminated immediately in Central American countries. Mr. Speaker, as stated in a letter from the California Ag Coalition for Free and Fair Trade, California producers of beef, fruit, nuts, vegetables, cotton, poultry, dairy products, wheat and rice stand to gain in a major way under CAFTA. I support this agreement for passage, and I urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to do likewise. CAFTA would help level the playing field for America's agriculture, increasing export opportunities for our growers and producers. It would be truly tragic for our Nation's agriculture and all of our economy if we let this opportunity escape us.

Mr. HERGER. Well, obviously, it does not help our trade deficit; it makes it worse. As the gentleman is pointing out, if we lose that, and the gentleman has pointed this out, there are other countries that are seeking to take these markets. China is working very diligently to take these markets, and we cannot allow this to happen. So it is imperative that we move, and we look to be having a vote this week, that we win and we have a big win in this very important area of trade.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the U.S.- Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement. Today, the United States and the five DR-CAFTA countries already enjoy a strong economic relationship. This FTA will only enhance that relationship by opening markets and integrating economies. Under the agreement, more than four-fifths of total U.S. exports to the six DR-CAFTA countries will receive immediate duty-free treatment. American farmers and manufacturers would benefit from the increased access and competitive advantage that duty-free treatment provides. But this FTA covers much more than trade and goods. Today, services are an integral part of the U.S. economy. Under the DR-CAFTA, the Central American countries will open their markets to U.S. services companies. In many cases, the agreement allows U.S. banking, insurance, telecommunications, and other services companies to compete in markets that were once dominated by state-endorsed monopolies. In addition, the FTA will put U.S. service providers at an advantage over their foreign competitors who do not have access to these six growing economies. I urge my colleagues to consider how CAFTA will benefit U.S. companies and vote to support this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to remind the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) that, during the last several years, we have passed out of this House two bills, both of which have offered as much as $4 billion more for child care, both of which the gentleman from Washington opposed. I might also mention that welfare case loads during this period of time of this legislation has fallen by 9 million, from 14 million recipients in 1994 to fewer than 5 million today. Again, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I think it is very clear how incredibly successful this program has been, and we need to move forward to make it even more successful. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this will be the 10th extension of these programs since the original authorization of the 1996 welfare reform law expired in 2002. That law produced remarkable results. Work among welfare recipients doubled. The poorest single-mother families reported a 67 percent increase in their real earnings between 1995 and 2002. Single mothers' real wages continued to increase during the 2000-2004 period, despite the 2001 recession and terrorist attacks. Despite predictions of welfare reform opponents that the 1996 welfare bill would increase poverty, the number of children in poverty fell by more than 1 million. The black and Hispanic child-poverty rates hit record lows. Welfare caseloads fell 60 percent to their lowest levels since 1965. Welfare funds stayed constant, and child care funds grew, even as caseloads plummeted. Taxpayer resources per family on welfare more than doubled from $7,000 per year to $16,000 per year today. In 2002 and 2003, the House passed comprehensive welfare reform legislation that would have extended these programs for a full 5 years. That legislation also included modest adjustments designed to encourage and support more work, higher incomes, stronger families, and less poverty. These House-passed bills offered up to $4 billion over 5 years and added child care funding to support more work. Unfortunately, our friends in the Senate did not follow suit, and so we have been forced to come to the floor with repeated short-term extensions. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we continue these programs, and I urge all Members to support this legislation. But while we mark time, we are missing out on many ways to help even more low-income parents and families leave welfare for work. We must do more to encourage States and local communities to support strong, healthy families. The subcommittee I chair has, once again, approved legislation that tracks the comprehensive welfare reform bill of the House that the House passed before. I expect in the coming months the full committee on Ways and Means and this House will once again act on comprehensive welfare reform legislation as part of the budget reconciliation process. Regardless of the process, our goals remain the same: to encourage and support more work, less poverty, and stronger families. Mr. Speaker, I believe this process of continued extensions of welfare programs is finally nearing an end. I look forward to working with our Members to get this done so more families can know the dignity of collecting paychecks instead of welfare checks. In the meantime, I urge support of the legislation before us that continues these welfare programs in their current form. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3021, the TANF Extension Act of 2005, as amended. This legislation will extend for 3 additional months certain welfare programs, including the Temporary Assistance For Needy Families and child care programs within the Committee on Ways and Mean's jurisdiction, so those programs would continue to operate at their current funding levels through September 30, 2005. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3021) to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program through September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to remind, again, those who speak detrimentally of this legislation that, since their opposition to this, no additional $4 billion for child care over the next 5 years has been able to have been offered. No assurance for full TANF funding through 2010 has been able to be available, that would be available in this legislation. No assurance of supplemental grants for low benefits in poor States. No assurance. And it goes on and on. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in 2002 and 2003 this House passed long-term reauthorization legislation to encourage more work among welfare recipients and to provide more resources for States to assist low- income families. And I have heard several on the other side, my good friend from Washington, talk about values, talk about Democrat values, Republican values. He spoke about the amount of funding. Let me just mention that under the Democrat values of the programs that we had twice as many who were on welfare than were on welfare today because caseloads were cut in half during our current legislation while Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF, funds were fixed and child care funds grew, Federal funds per TANF families more than doubled. As a matter of fact, in 1996 the average family under the old Democrat plan had $6,934 average approximate per family. In 2004 these same families had $16,185 because the program was block granted, and it was an equal amount of funding coming in and it was not reduced. This, Mr. Speaker, would be the 10th extension of these programs since 2002. However, I believe this process of continued extensions of welfare programs is finally nearing an end. I expect that the House will soon act on and pass comprehensive welfare reform legislation as part of the budget reconciliation process. But until that happens, it is important that we continue these programs and we do need to pass this bill today. Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3021.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to suspend the duty on electronic educational toys for children. This duty is, in fact, an educational tax on the consumer. At a time when we as policymakers are focusing on ways to enhance education for our children, it is important to aggressively promote tools that are valuable in teaching fundamental skills. Penalizing the consumer for buying educational toys is contrary to the country's educational goals. Currently, computers and toys enter the United States duty free. But electronic educational toys have a duty. This duty is inevitably passed on to the consumer. We do not want to create a situation where a consumer may be less inclined to buy an educational toy versus a regular toy, which has not had to absorb the cost of the duty. The company leading the fight to eliminate the tax on electronic educational toys is a California company, LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. LeapFrog is an innovative company and a leading developer of educational products, currently employing 1,000 people in my state. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to end an unwise tax on education.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 157 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend from Washington, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) the chairman of the ethics committee, for his efforts to resolve the regrettable impasse that has prevented the committee from organizing. He has made a thoughtful and good-faith attempt to clear up any misunderstanding and resolve any perceived concerns. But this was rejected out of hand by our friends on the other side of the aisle. Why? Because their concerns are neither real nor substantive. They want the committee to be in limbo. They are creating an issue for political purposes without any positive ideas about how to resolve the very serious challenges facing our Nation. Negativity and political attacks are their only strategy. Mr. Speaker, this is wrong. Let us move forward constructively and stop abusing our ethics process for purely political gain.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation entitled the ``Public Good IRA Rollover Act.'' I am introducing this bill to encourage increased charitable giving by correcting certain provisions in the tax code related to Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). Americans should have the opportunity to make tax-free charitable contributions directly from their IRA accounts. This legislation is designed to allow individuals age 59\1/2\ or older to contribute amounts currently held in IRA accounts directly to qualified charities without having to first recognize the income for tax purposes and then take a charitable deduction. This legislation will give individuals more freedom to allocate their resources as they see fit while providing badly needed funding for charities, churches, museums, universities, and many other nonprofit organizations. The IRA was intended to encourage individuals to save for retirement, but due to a strong economy and an increase in asset values, many individuals have more funds in these accounts that they anticipated or now need to retire comfortably. Thus, it is very common for retirees to donate some of their wealth to charities and, in some cases, that wealth is held in an IRA. Individuals may withdraw funds from an IRA without incurring an early withdrawal penalty once they reach age 59\1/2\. Currently, however, these IRA withdrawals are generally taxed as income, even if the individual donates the money to charity. Many donors are reluctant to make charitable contributions from their IRA assets because of the additional tax costs they will incur. Congress has exempted withdrawals from IRA accounts under certain circumstances, such as to finance the purchase of a home or a college education. Congress should also make it possible for older Americans to support charities by allowing withdrawals from their IRA assets without suffering adverse tax consequences. This legislation also addresses other obstacles to charitable giving created by the current tax code. A taxpayer could readily recognize the IRA withdrawal income for tax purposes and, after making a charitable gift, take a charitable tax deduction. Unfortunately, in many cases under current law such a simple arrangement results in a loss of some portion of the charitable deduction. For example, charitable contributions are subject to the itemized deduction ``haircut'' under which certain taxpayers lose a portion of their charitable deduction. It is very difficult to estimate the amount of capital trapped by the current tax and rollover rules, and thus not available to our nation's charities. According to one report, there is over $1 trillion held in IRA accounts. If only 1 percent of this would be donated to charity but for the tax problems associated with charitable rollovers, this represents a $10 billion loss of resources to these organizations that do so much good. I will give just one example from my state of California, where universities and colleges receive tremendous support from private individuals. These donations and financial gifts are critical to providing the funding needed to maintain quality higher education and keep it available and affordable. In the UC system, private contributions provide more than $369 million for individual university departments, $291 million for research, $225 million for campus improvements, and $84 million for scholarships and student support services. In addition, planned gifts such as charitable remainder trusts, gift annuities, and pooled income funds are a tremendously valuable source of funding for the University of California System. This legislation encourages more charitable gifts such as this, which will greatly benefit universities and many other charities. This is sound and greatly needed legislation. Similar legislation has consistently received strong bi-partisan support in both chambers of Congress. This bill was part of the CARE Act that passed the House last year. In addition, President Bush has endorsed this proposal and it was included in the Administration's budget request for FY2005 and FY2006. This legislation is crucial to many local and national charities, including American Red Cross and the YMCA. Associations that represent thousands of our nation's charities and nonprofit professionals, such as the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, the National Committee on Planned Giving, INDEPENDENT SECTOR, and the Association of Fundraising Professionals, hear daily from their members whose donors want to make gifts from their IRA assets. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this legislation to increase private giving to charitable organizations by removing the disincentive currently in the tax code. We must continue to support proposals such as this that strengthen and increase resources for the nonprofit sector, a sector that plays such an important role in lives of millions of Americans every day. I know this legislation is needed in California and in your local communities as well. I hope my colleagues will join me in passing this important legislation.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of legislation to bury the destructive death tax once and for all; and I might mention that my personal experiences, even with my own family and others, has been just the opposite of the gentleman who just spoke before. Nearly everywhere I go throughout my largely rural, agricultural district in northern California, I hear from businessmen and businesswomen and many farmers and ranchers who have had to liquidate and sell a family business or farm just to pay the Federal estate tax. This is simply wrong. Four years ago, I joined with President Bush and a majority of Representatives and Senators in an effort to enact into law historic tax relief legislation, including repeal of the death tax. Unfortunately, due to outdated Senate budget rules, the 2001 tax law will sunset on December 31, 2010. This has created an incredibly unfair and arbitrary situation. Consider that the heirs of those who pass away in 2010 will face no death tax whatsoever, while those whose families are unfortunate enough to pass away in 2011 or thereafter will face tax rates of up to 55 percent on their assets, forcing many of them to have to sell. Certainly no one can reasonably argue that this is rational tax policy. Furthermore, the death tax extracts a high cost from American taxpayers. Studies have found that family businesses spend up to $125,000 on attorneys, accountants and financial experts to assist in estate planning. These dollars could otherwise be used to modernize equipment, expand their business or farms and create new jobs. Mr. Speaker, the death tax is, without question, one of the most destructive, counterproductive and unfair provisions of our Tax Code. Let us bury the death tax once and for all. Vote ``aye'' on this legislation.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago Congress, working together with President Bush, enacted into law the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. Among other provisions, the law strengthened and expanded the expensing provisions afforded to small businesses under Section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code. As such, the law encouraged small businesses to make new capital investments, thus spurring our economy and creating jobs. I believe Congress should make this provision permanent and today I am introducing the ``Small Business Expensing Permanency Act of 2005'' to do just that. Specifically, 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. Unfortunately, under current law, these provisions are set to expire after 2007. My legislation will repeal the 2007 sunset. 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. 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. Mr. 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 Permanency Act of 2005'' will help accomplish this worthy goal. I applaud the Administration for its consistent leadership on this issue, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this much needed legislation.

Mr. HERGER

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

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1160, the Welfare Reform Extension Act of 2005. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will continue funding for the Temporary Assistance For Needy Families Program and other related programs for 3 months through June 30th, 2005. Mr. Speaker, this is the ninth extension of these programs we have considered since their original authorization expired at the end of 2002. In 2002 and 2003, the House passed comprehensive welfare reform legislation that would promote more work, provide more child care assistance and help more low-income families become self-sufficient. Unfortunately, our friends in the Senate did not follow suit, and therefore we have been forced to mark time. Still, we are encouraged that on March 9 the Senate Finance Committee approved a welfare reform bill and hope that this year the full Senate would pass such legislation so that we can make real progress. It is important that we are here today to continue funding for this remarkably successful program. Since the welfare reform law was passed in 1996, the number of families receiving welfare assistance has fallen more than 60 percent. More than 1.4 million children have been lifted from poverty. However, as we have marked time with this program through a series of short-term extensions, we have seen evidence that the gains made over the years are in jeopardy. Work among welfare recipients has declined in 3 of the last 4 years. Two million families remain dependent on government assistance, and we are not taking enough steps to strengthen families which will improve child well-being. We must do more to help strong families form and more parents go to work and achieve independence. Mr. Speaker, on the first day of the 109th Congress I joined the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, as well as the committee chairman and subcommittee chairman with jurisdiction over these programs to introduce H.R. 240, the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2005. Tomorrow, the Subcommittee on Human Resources, which I chair, will mark up this legislation, the first step in the process of again bringing it to the floor for a vote in the coming weeks. This legislation is nearly identical to the legislation this House passed in 2002 and 2003, with appropriate updates given the passage of time since the last time the House acted. I look forward to working with all my colleagues to pass this legislation so we can get to conference and get a bill for the President's desk. House Republicans stand with President Bush and support the proposals he has championed that encourage more work and promote stronger families, and we will continue to work towards their implementation. It is unfortunate, as I have said in the past, that we have not been able to get such comprehensive welfare legislation to the President's desk for his signature. The budgetary pressures this year are a reality we all will work to address, which may involve difficult choices in some of these areas. Our previous legislation ensured full funding for the TANF program while providing up to $4 billion more for child care so more parents could go to work. With record-high Federal budget deficits, the longer we wait, the harder it will be for us to provide for this level of welfare-to-work programs. I hope this extension is our last and by June 30 we will have sent long-term reauthorization legislation to the President. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make this a reality. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation before us today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1160) to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program through June 30, 2005, and for other purposes.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in 2002 and 2003, this House passed long-term reauthorization legislation to encourage more work among welfare recipients and to provide more resources for States to assist low- income families. I am encouraged that last week the Senate Committee on Finance reported a welfare reform bill. Tomorrow, the subcommittee I chair will mark up long-term reauthorization, and it is my hope that over the next few months we can pass long-term legislation and send a bill to the President for his signature. But until that happens, it is important that we continue these programs, so we do need to pass this bill. Therefore, I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1160.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in introducing H.R. 240, the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2005. This legislation reauthorizes and strengthens the successful welfare reforms begun in the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193). Joining me introducing this legislation are Representatives Pryce, Thomas, Boehner, Barton, Goodlatte, McKeon, Bilirakis, DeLay, Shaw, Cantor, English, Camp, Nancy Johnson, Weller, Norwood, Joe Wilson and Kline.