Wally Herger

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to point out to the gentleman from Michigan, Congress provided extended unemployment benefits for 2 years in the wake of the 2001 recession and terrorist attacks. We also provided record Federal funds for States to assist the unemployed which included $1.1 billion to 330,000 workers in the gentleman from Michigan's own State. I would like to thank my colleagues for joining me here on the floor today to discuss this important bipartisan legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to support the SUTA Dumping Prevention Act to stop fraud and abuse and make our unemployment compensation system stronger and fairer to all. This is good bipartisan legislation. Let us pass it today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Just in response to my good friend from Maryland, thanks to the Republican tax cuts, the economy is strong and getting stronger. The economy recently grew faster than any time in the past 20 years. In the past 4 months, 1 million new jobs were created. The unemployment rate dropped in the last year from 6.3 percent to 5.6 percent. Today's unemployment rate is lower than the average during the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s. Instead of engaging in partisan rhetoric, we should focus on the bipartisan bill before us which will strengthen the unemployment compensation system and make it fairer to all. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read from a fax that I just received from the Office of the President of the United States. It is a Statement of Administration Policy in which it states: ``The administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 3463, the SUTA Dumping Prevention Act, which would strengthen the financial integrity of State unemployment insurance (UI) programs. The bill would support the President's management agenda by saving hundreds of millions of dollars in fraudulent UI benefit payments and reduce tax avoidance by employers. The administration urges Congress to act on these commonsense reforms to promote fairness and reduce erroneous payments.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the bill offered by my good friend from California and Chairman of the Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power, Congressman Ken Calvert. Mr. Speaker, on balance, H.R. 2828 is not a good bill for rural Northern California. While it takes some positive steps forward to improve the administration of CALFED by instituting greater financial accountability and ecosystem reporting requirements, it still allows the implementation of an expensive, and ill-advised program that has not produced storage nor positive results for Northern California. The bill basically adopts and focuses on the CALFED Record of Decision (ROD) as a framework, which does not provide a comprehensive water solution for the State. CALFED has always been heavily weighted toward ecosystem restoration and increasing exports from the Delta. I don't see that changing sufficiently under this bill. New storage under CALFED has been only empty promises, and the language in H.R. 2828 doesn't ensure otherwise. The state should take a new direction that places a greater emphasis on water storage and constrains the ability of state and federal agencies to buy more land and water. In short, there is not much to be gained, but much to be lost under H.R. 2828 for our area. As such, I strongly oppose it. I originally supported the CALFED program in concept. Recognizing the very serious water challenges facing our state, I shared the view held by many other Members of Congress from California that such a joint state-federal program could provide an opportunity for developing a framework to solve our water woes for the long-term. Unfortunately, rather than providing a realistic solution to allow the water interests in the state to ``get well together,'' as CALFED had originally promised, the program has become heavily weighted toward ecosystem restoration and focused on buying land and water to shift around already constrained water supplies, rather than on developing new water storage to meet our state's growing water needs. In addition, there has never been sufficient local control. Instead, federal agencies have been empowered to make important decisions about land and water resources impacting communities. California faces a water deficit of potentially crisis proportions. The water supply in the state is already stretched to its practical limits. To put the current situation in perspective, recognize that the State Water Project was constructed when California's population was only 16 million people. Today it is over 34 million, and growing at a rate of roughly 600,000 new citizens a year. Yet California's water supply yield has increased by a mere 2 percent over the last 20 years. And the California Water Plan Update, Bulletin 160-98 from a few years ago indicates that existing supply shortages will get appreciably worse over the next 20 years as the state's population continues to increase. Water deficits are projected to reach approximately 2.4 million acre feet in an average water year and 6.2 million acre feet in drought years by the year 2020. If history is any guide, Californians are likely to face major drought conditions not unlike the 500-year drought that is currently plaguing the Colorado basin states some time in the near future. Yet despite this pending crisis, the central focus of the CALFED program has been a plethora of costly environmental projects and plans to increase ability of the State and Federal water projects to move more water to Southern California, CALFED has failed to make the hard decisions necessary to meet this incredible challenge. While it publicly recognizes water shortfalls, the storage solutions it has proposed will not provide sufficient supply benefits. A new Sites Reservoir, raising Shasta Dam and augmenting Los Vaqueros could be essential pieces of our water puzzle, but my concern is they really won't inject significant additional water ``yield'' into the system. CALFED has taken solutions such as an Auburn Dam, a Yuba Dam, and other on-stream reservoirs off the table because of the environmental controversy they might cause, despite the fact that they present opportunities for new cost-effective water supplies, and provide other benefits like flood control, electricity generation and recreation. Our current situation is so desperate, and the possible impacts to the economy and public safety of another sustained drought so horrific, that we're not in a position to take these options off the table because they're politically unpalatable. To the contrary, we should be vigorously pursuing them, setting deadlines and goals, streamlining environmental review requirements, and updating federal laws to ensure cost-effective, feasible projects will actually be built and provide water to communities and farmers. Yet, despite several years and millions of dollars of investments from the state and federal government, CALFED has only studied and restudied a limited number of small storage options, without moving the ball down the field. Meantime, our water needs continue to grow dramatically. Fundamentally, when the problem is too many people and not enough water, I believe the answer is to create additional water storage, not sacrifice some parts of the state, including California's thriving agriculture industry, so others can get better. Carving up and reallocating an already constrained water system will not allow everyone to ``get well together.'' The ``Water Supply, Reliability and Environmental Improvement Act'' takes some positive steps forward in some areas, and will institute some accountability into a program that desperately needs it. For example, CALFED has spent taxpayer dollars without Congress or the public knowing or understanding where those funds have gone, and what the benefits for the state have been. H.R. 2828's financial reporting requirements will help Congress better track those expenditures. In addition, the annual reporting requirements for ecosystem restoration provided for in the bill will help Congress better monitor those projects, including land and water purchases. The bill also clarifies that local fish screen projects are a legitimate and helpful way to help local farmers meet federal and state endangered species requirements. I believe each of these program changes represent positive steps forward. That being said, I do not feel this bill goes far enough to fix a program that is fundamentally flawed and moving in the wrong direction. While its expedited ``preauthorization'' process for CALFED storage projects elevates storage as a principle and could set an important new precedent for future infrastructure development, it appears to authorize only those projects approved pursuant to the CALFED ROD. I have long argued that CALFED's storage proposals are woefully insufficient to address our state's water needs. According to some estimates, a small Shasta raise, a new Sites Reservoir and a project at Los Vaqueros--the CALFED ROD's storage projects--the approximate yield would be only about 300,000 acre feet--far short of addressing a water shortfall in the millions of acre feet. The bill also does not require expedited consideration for these projects. We have seen time and again how CALFED has dithered and stalled in pursuing new storage. In my view, a responsible CALFED should set hard and fast deadlines and move storage forward on an aggressive schedule. Moreover, the federal environmental review process, as we have seen on forest health projects, can take years and cost millions of dollars, only to be obstructed in the end by radical environmentalists through appeals and court challenges. The bill does not recognize and address those hard realities. In my view, it doesn't do enough to streamline the environmental review process, or to address the obstacles that unbalanced environmental laws are likely to pose to their ultimate development. There is nothing in the bill to prevent CALFED agencies from continuing to purchase land and water as proposed in the ROD. Indeed, the bill explicitly authorizes the purchase of land and water as an acceptable CALFED activity under existing authority. And while there are reporting requirements, the impetus is on Congress to specifically defund these agency-approved acquisitions, rather than on the agencies to ask Congress to specifically approve and justify them. Because of the community impacts and private property rights concerns of additional land and water acquisitions, it should be the other way around. I am also concerned by proposals to place the burden of CALFED funding on the shoulders of Sacramento Valley water users, but I understand Chairman Calvert has attempted to address that issue. In accordance with language contained in the report accompanying H.R. 2828, the ``beneficiary pays'' principle specifically applies to direct beneficiaries of projects that improve the Delta. According to this principle, project participants in the CALFED solution area are not considered direct beneficiaries of the CALFED program. Therefore, Sacramento Valley water users who participate in projects to improve the Delta are not subject to any fees or taxes imposed on beneficiaries of the CALFED program. In closing, something needs to be done--and soon--about the water situation in California. It is only getting worse with each passing day. Today's legislation takes some positive steps forward and I commend my colleagues for their efforts in this regard. However, I fear that the task at hand is so great that unless stronger and more aggressive changes are made to the CALFED program, the state will fail to meet today's and tomorrow's infrastructure challenges.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 308 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Stated against:

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have heard a great deal from the other side indicating that evidently when this bill originally came through, the historic 1996 legislation, that it was bipartisan. Yet we have heard the chairman that was chairman of the committee during that time indicate just the opposite, and I believe that the record certainly indicates that. The other side, the other party, opposed this legislation in committee and opposed it on the floor when it was voted on. It did that three times. It overwhelmingly opposed it. It was not until President Clinton finally said he was going to support it that there was finally, for basically the first time, any support from the other side. I think the record should show that to be the case. Another point is when all we do is extend this legislation and do not go with H.R. 4, what we are doing is denying an additional $4 billion for child care over the next 5 years. There is no assurance of full TANF funding for the next 5 years. In the area of marriage and families, there will be no additional $1.5 billion targeted to promoting healthy marriages, no added State flexibility to count spending on strengthening families. It goes on and on on what we will be denying ourselves. It also denies the added flexibility to spend an additional $4 billion in unspent prior TANF funds. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a former chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wish the legislation before us today were not needed. But we do need to pass this bill. That is the only way we can have any hope of reaching agreement this year on ways to better assist low-income Americans in going to work and supporting their families. I am pleased that the House has taken action on that important goal and look forward to defending our broader welfare reauthorization bill, H.R. 4, in conference. It is a good bill which promotes stronger families, healthy marriage, and more involvement by fathers in their children's lives, which all would improve child well-being. H.R. 4 also expects and supports more work in exchange for welfare benefits. That is what made the 1996 welfare reform so successful at lifting families off of welfare and out of poverty and dependence. It is past time for additional commonsense measures to help the 2 million parents that remain on welfare today go to work and better support their families.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, during the June 22, 2004 House debate on extending welfare programs, Democrats suggested the process behind the historic 1996 welfare reform law was far more bipartisan than today. They need to recheck the facts. The Republic reauthorization bills passed by the House in 2002 and 2003 were more ``bipartisan'' than two out of three welfare bills considered in the mid-1990s. During the 1990s, the vast majority of House Democrats OPPOSED welfare reform at every stage in the legislative process. The single exception was on the conference report that became the 1996 welfare reform law, when 50 percent of Democrats voted for welfare reform--but only after then-President Clinton announced he would sign the Republican bill.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

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, well, here we go again, another 3 months, another extension of welfare programs. Today, the House will approve the seventh straight extension of welfare programs since September 2002. Since then, the number of Americans collecting welfare has continued to track downward. Fewer people are dependent on welfare checks, which is good. That follows historic declines in welfare caseloads from 1996 through 2001 as pro-work reforms cut caseloads in half and more than 2 million children left poverty, but we want to do much much more. We want more welfare recipients to prepare for work, which is the true path off welfare. We want to help more parents marry or stay married, which helps them and helps their children. We want to help more parents get ready for full-time work, which is what it takes to lift families out of poverty. We want to provide more child care so more parents can go to work, knowing their children are cared for and safe. For the past 2 years, we wanted to do all of those things. In fact, the House passed legislation to do all of that and more, twice. In both 2002 and 2003, the House passed comprehensive welfare bills to strengthen the historic 1996 welfare law for years to come. More low- income families would have gotten more help and more would have left welfare for the workforce; but instead, we have waited and waited and waited some more. For the past 2 years, we have waited on the other body to pass its version of a real welfare bill. For a time this spring it looked like the other body would pass a bill to make available these additional resources for low-income families. That did not happen, and so we are here waiting some more. Some in this town apparently think by delaying and obstructing the legislative process they will get their way in the end. I wish them luck. I think they are wrong, and low-income families will continue to pay the price for their obstructionism. I am a fiscal conservative. I am for less government spending, not more. I think that expands the bounds of freedom and opportunity, but I am also a realist. I have seen how welfare reform has lifted literally millions of families out of dependence. Welfare reform has saved taxpayers money, but it has not been free. It will not be free in the future. The House-passed welfare bill includes reforms and resources needed to help more low-income parents go to work. The families in need will not get a dime of the additional help we included in the House-passed bill unless we can reach final agreement on a real reform bill. As time passes, budget pressures will only squeeze tighter and tighter, and the additional help we have offered will become only harder to come by. Given that fact, and the fact we offer to do so much more, give much more to help needy families, it is a tragedy we are back here today with yet another short-term extension that does not give States the certainty they need to best plan for the future. Mr. Speaker, I wish the legislation before us today were not needed, but we do need to pass this bill. I urge support for this bill, which buys us another 3 months in the hopes the other body will finally act on a broader welfare reform bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4589) to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program through September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, also the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, where this historic legislation originally was enacted in 1996.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of H.R. 4589 and H.R. 4372.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for purposes of a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for engaging in this colloquy with me about the need to increase water storage in the Klamath Basin and to seek balanced solutions that will allow everyone to get well together, rather than unfairly targeting agriculture as the problem. Mr. Chairman, first allow me to clarify some inaccuracies in a colloquy that occurred last night involving my good friend and colleague from Oregon. Allow me to point out that the gentleman from Oregon who engaged in that colloquy with the chairman last evening, through which he professed concern about the Klamath Basin, does not represent that area. In fact, his district is nearly 300 miles away. I want to clarify that for the record because I think there was a misunderstanding. In fact, the three Members of Congress who actually do represent the citizens of that area, myself, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) do not support the position of my friend, the gentleman from Oregon. The studies he proposed will not provide solutions for the Klamath Basin. These issues have been studied and restudied. There is no smoking gun. While the proposed ``studies'' and other past efforts to regulate the lease lands are said to be benign, they are far from that. They were an attempt to undermine farming. I ask that the committee not support anything that attempts to misconstrue the farming situation on the refuges and wrongly imply that it is a problem or poses a conflict with wildlife. It simply ``is not'' and ``does not.'' In fact, quite the contrary. Agriculture and wildlife are thriving on refuges. Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me clear up one other misconception. The Klamath Basin disaster of 2001 was not about too much demand. It was about an unbalanced regulatory regime and scientific failings that caused water to be needlessly taken from agriculture and from refuges from endangered species. After updating the law and the science, the other important step for us to achieve balance is for Congress and the administration to work to increase water storage. My concern, Mr. Chairman, is that new water supplies are not being pursued with the vigor and the commitment that they require. Congress authorized the Klamath Basin Water Supply Enhancement Act nearly 5 years ago; however, we have yet to see significant measurable progress towards developing new supplies. Mr. Chairman, we hope to have your support for encouraging the Secretary of the Interior to put more money and more energy into using this authority to aggressively pursue new storage opportunities such as a Long Lake Reservoir which can provide more water for all interests in the Klamath Basin. One last thing, Mr. Chairman. If any of my colleagues want to work to find solutions for the Klamath Basin, I want to personally invite them to come to the Committee on Resources' field hearing on July 17. Rather than an uninformed debate here on the House floor, we would talk to the people on the ground and engage in a thorough discussion about the real problems and constructive solutions. We would talk about what farmers are actually doing for the refuges. We would discuss the scientific shortcomings and how to fix them for the long term. We would talk about how to develop more water supplies to create water supply certainty for all interests. Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate your support for honest debate and balanced solutions. I hope that we will have your support to implement expeditiously whatever commonsense balanced solutions might arise from our hearing.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the American Jobs Creation Act. It is critical that we pass this legislation today. Many of our exports to Europe are currently facing an 8 percent tariff, and this tariff will rise to 17 percent if we do not act. This legislation is also critical because it recognizes that American companies are operating in a global economy, and we need a tax system that allows them to compete and win. This bill makes necessary reforms, but most importantly, this legislation will be a tremendous benefit to U.S. manufacturers, both large and small. Some have said this legislation does not do enough for small business; yet this legislation is strongly supported by the largest small business group in America, the National Federation of Independent Business. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 249 I inadvertently voted ``no.'' I intended to vote ``yes.'' Stated against:

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, some of my first impressions of Ronald Reagan were back in the 1950s when I was yet in grammar school, and I observed him as he hosted the ``General Electric Theater.'' And then again I remember him just after graduating from high school in 1964 when he campaigned and he spoke out for Barry Goldwater. Ronald Reagan stood for ideals that simply were not being expressed anyplace else. The appropriately named Reagan Revolution was precisely that. He was one of the main reasons I ran for political office. In the late 1970s, we heard our leaders talk about lowering expectations and the good times are over and that our Nation is in a, quote, general malaise. This was mirrored in high inflation that reached 10 to 12 percent, unemployment rates that were over 10 percent or more, and a prime interest rate that reached as high as 21.5 percent. But then in stepped Ronald Reagan saying America could do better and America would do better. When Ronald Reagan said it, you believed it. His vision of the shining city on the hill gave hope to countless millions of Americans. Back then I, as a small business owner who grew up on a ranch, the American dream appeared endangered by high taxes and big government. In California, property taxes were doubling and tripling. With Ronald Reagan, there was someone we could rally around. His hope, his direction, and his moral clarity gave us all renewed energy. Ronald Reagan had the great ability to say what so many of us were thinking, what we were thinking about our national budget, about our national defense, about taxes; and, yes, about a better America. The first time I ever met Ronald Reagan was in 1980 when I was running for the State Assembly in California and I journeyed to Simi Valley to get my picture taken with him. I can remember growing up hearing my mother talking about President Franklin Roosevelt, how she would listen to President Roosevelt on the radio during the Great Depression and during World War II. President Roosevelt gave hope to her generation. Ronald Reagan was to my generation what FDR was to my parents. In Congress I had the privilege to meet Ronald Reagan six or seven times. Just being around President Reagan was inspiring. He lit up the room. To those of us who believed strongly in the American dream, in traditional values and the Judeo-Christian faith, Ronald Reagan was indeed a shining light in the city when there seemed to be none. His spirit will live on in the hearts of Americans. He was truly one of our Nation's greatest Presidents. Ronald Reagan, thank you, thank you, for all you have done for me. Thank you, thank you, for all you have done for our great Nation.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to recommit. This Republican Congress provided additional assistance to the unemployed when it was needed. Through laws passed in 2002 and 2003, nearly 8 million laid-off workers received more than $23 billion in special Federal-extended unemployment benefits. Let me repeat that. Nearly 8 million people received $23 billion in additional help. We continued that temporary program twice last year when unemployment was rising and the economy was shedding jobs. Fortunately, today that situation has dramatically improved. The economy recently has been growing at the fastest rate in 20 years. President Bush's tax relief worked to turn the economy around. That is why unemployment continues to fall. During the past 12 months, unemployment rates have dropped in every region of the country, including in 47 States. Today's unemployment rate is lower than the average of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Last month saw one of the steepest drops ever in the number of long-term unemployed. Nearly 1 million new jobs have been created this year alone, 138 million Americans are working now, more than ever before in our Nation's history. This suggests what we always knew, people want to work, not collect more unemployment benefits. Republicans are working hard to keep this tremendous economic and job growth going. This Democrat motion goes in the opposite direction. It will not help provide critical training for those seeking jobs. Mr. Speaker, let us reject this motion to recommit.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Child Credit Preservation and Expansion Act of 2004. As a member of the tax-writing Committee on Ways and Means, I have been privileged to work on a number of important tax relief measures. However, nothing has done more to reduce the tax burden on middle-class families than the child tax credit. Three years ago, we made a decision to raise the child credit from $500 per child to $1,000 per child. This was good policy 3 years ago, and it is good policy today. Unless we act, the child credit would drop next year to $700. This will mean an average tax increase of $600 on 30 million Americans with children. Without the congressional action, the child credit would drop again to $500 after 2010. This would result in a tax hike of more than $1,000 on 34 million taxpayers with children. Many families in my district in northern California, Mr. Speaker, are already having a difficult time making ends meet. Now is not the time to allow for a new tax increase. The underlying bill also improves the child credit by allowing more families to qualify. Further, the bill makes the credit more valuable to lower-income families and more accessible to military families receiving combat pay. Mr. Speaker, if we value children and we value families, let us make our Tax Code more family friendly. I urge my colleagues to reject the Democrat substitute and support the underlying bill.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, while I inadvertently missed the final vote on H.R. 3722, Roll Call Vote #182, 1 would have voted in favor of the resolution. The Medicare and Prescription Drug Reform bill last year appropriated $1 billion over four years to pay state and local health facilities for the costs they incur in treating illegal aliens. Without denying health care to anyone appearing in the emergency room for treatment, H.R. 3722 would have required that local hospitals turn over information to the Department of Homeland Security about the illegal aliens they treat, as a condition of being reimbursed under the new program. If hospitals chose not to do so, they would still be free to continue treating undocumented aliens. They simply wouldn't receive payment for these services. Although H.R. 3722 was not approved, as a member of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, I will continue to work with others in Congress toward meaningful solutions to curb the trend of illegal migration to the United States.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Rangel substitute. Under the guise of individual tax relief from the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, the Rangel substitute would raise taxes by $15 billion. This new tax increase would fall squarely on the shoulders of America's small businesses, the same American companies that create jobs and drive our Nation's economic engine. The tax relief this Congress has passed over the past 3 years has contributed mightily to the economic recovery we are now experiencing. More than 750,000 jobs have been created in the past 8 months. We have strong economic growth of between 4 and 5 percent, low inflation, and homeownership rates at the highest level ever. Mr. Speaker, why in the world would we choose to raise taxes on American small businesses just as our economy has turned the corner? Why would we smother the engines of job creation with higher taxes? Yet this is exactly what the Democrat substitute would have us do. Hard- working Americans need relief from the unfair AMT tax, and the majority bill offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) will give it to them. Without passage of the majority bill, an additional 8 million middle income taxpayers will see their Federal taxes rise because of the AMT next year. We cannot allow this to happen. Let us reject the Democrat substitute and pass the underlying bill. Americans deserve relief from the AMT tax, not new taxes.