Wally Herger

Mr. HERGER

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

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2231) to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program through June 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2231, the Welfare Reform Extension Act of 2004. This legislation is a straight 3-month extension of key parts of the Nation's welfare system. Madam Speaker, the historic welfare reform law we passed in 1996 is working. Since 1996, more than 2 million children have been lifted from poverty, millions of families have left or remain off welfare, cutting welfare dependence in half, child well-being has dramatically improved, and record numbers of low-income parents are working. But, Madam Speaker, that is not enough. Despite our progress, 2 million American families still remain dependent on welfare today. More than half of welfare recipients do not participate in any work or job training to prepare them for the future. Every year, millions of families break up or never form, risking welfare dependence for years to come. We must do more to assist these families. Madam Speaker, that is why it is unfortunate that we are here today to approve yet another straight extension instead of an agreement on more long-term improvements. The House passed such comprehensive reform bills in 2002 and a year later in 2003, but the Senate still has not passed a companion bill, although one is being debated now. Madam Speaker, in an effort to promote at least some reforms in recent weeks I have introduced two alternatives to a straight extension. Both of these alternatives would continue welfare funding at current levels, just like the bill before us today, but these alternatives would also provide more to help low-income families. My first alternative would expect more welfare recipients to engage in work, a proven path out of poverty, or help more families avoid welfare dependence altogether. My second alternative also would continue current programs while redirecting a small portion of welfare bonus funds to promote more healthy married families. Both policies are drawn straight from the reforms that passed the House last year as part of our welfare reform bill, H.R. 4. I introduced these alternatives because, after 18 months of simply maintaining the status quo, we must do more to help low-income families. I wish we were debating either of these extension bills today. The simple fact is that every day that passes without comprehensive agreement means more low-income families depending on welfare. It means less work and job preparation by parents. It means fewer child care and child support resources available to help families. It means more poverty, and it means more families breaking up or never forming. Madam Speaker, there is real danger in continued delay as well. The House-passed welfare bill proposes $1 billion more in mandatory child care funding during the next 5 years. It proposes billions more in discretionary child care funding. It proposes full funding for TANF programs. Will those dollars be available in future years? Perhaps. But as time continues to pass and funding becomes tighter, the assurance that increased or even current Federal funding for these programs will remain available becomes more tenuous. For the past several years, Members on this side of the aisle have resisted proposals to reduce welfare funding knowing that these programs are working and recognizing the need for sufficient funds to make further reforms successful. But that case becomes harder to make, for example, if there is no real work requirement for welfare benefits for yet another year as further reforms fall by the wayside. Madam Speaker, I encourage all Members to support the bill before us today. The bill will continue current funding for key welfare programs through June 30, 2004. It has already passed the other body, and I know the President will sign it immediately. As I have said during prior extension debates, it is my sincere hope that this will be the final extension needed and that the next 3 months will result in a final agreement that will help millions more families achieve independence and a brighter future. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just in response, the gentleman mentioned that the bill was inadequate in terms of funding. I would like to remind the gentleman to consider that the States have been offered some $2 billion more in child care, that is in our bill, and that is on top of the $170 billion of State and Federal welfare/child care funds currently available over the next 5 years. Also, there is some $4 billion in TANF surplus that is available. I might also mention that another comment was made that there were unfunded mandates. The fact is that in this legislation, there are no unfunded mandates in H.R. 4. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The comment was made that somehow we are not funding as much or funding is less. Not only is this not accurate, the exact opposite in fact is the truth. In terms of case welfare, child care funds available per person on welfare, there is twice as much funding available today as there was in 1996 because the rolls have been cut in half and yet the funding has remained constant. For example, in 1996 the average amount of money available per welfare family was about $7,000. Today, the average amount available for each family is $16,000, from $7,000 to $16,000, that is available. Madam Speaker, again, as I have said during prior extension debates, it is my sincere hope that this will be the final extension needed and that the next 3 months will result in a final agreement that will help millions more families achieve independence and a brighter future. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hensarling substitute budget. This budget sets priorities by fully funding the President's defense and homeland security requests while calling for a 1 percent reduction in the rest of the discretionary budget. The budget addresses waste in non-Social Security mandatory spending by reducing it by just 1 cent out of each dollar. This budget protects the recent tax relief from increases for working families, parents and married couples and provides new tax relief that is necessary to strengthen the economic recovery. Finally, this budget begins fixing the broken Federal budget process by requiring a stand-alone vote to bypass any budget enforcement mechanism and therefore stopping the practice of labeling regular spending as emergencies. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Hensarling amendment.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Social Security Program Protection Act. This bill contains important provisions to better protect disabled Americans, prevent fraud and abuse in Social Security programs, and help disabled beneficiaries return to work. Over the years, the Committee on Ways and Means, on which I serve, has taken a number of steps to better protect Social Security recipients and other taxpayers. The bill we are considering today will make an important contribution to those continuing efforts. I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for his leadership and persistence on this legislation over the course of several Congresses. I particularly want to thank him for including provisions that will help bring criminals to justice, rather than subsidizing their flight, by preventing convicted fugitive felons and parole or probation violators from getting Social Security checks. These provisions build on my previous legislation that now has successfully blocked prisoners and fugitive felons from getting illegally millions of dollars in supplemental security income checks. Please join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Miller amendment. This amendment would authorize an indeterminate amount of extra funds under the Community Service Block Grant program for States to use for more extended unemployment benefits. I stress that these funds would be authorized, but not appropriated. So everyone listening to this debate should know that this bill would have no effect, even if it were signed into law. It would require another bill, a supplemental appropriations bill, to actually make good on this supposed promise. The chances of that happening are about zero, and here is why. In March of 2002, Congress provided States a record $8 billion in additional funds they may use to help unemployed workers. Never in our history have we provided more flexible Federal funds to the States to help the unemployed. According to the Department of Labor and based on reports from the States, as of December 31, 2003, States still had more than $5 billion of this $8 billion left over to assist the unemployed. Let me repeat that. Almost 2 years later, the States had $5 billion left over, and almost every State still has at least some of this Federal money left. Thirty-one States, including major States like Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Maine, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, and West Virginia have more than 90 percent of their money left. Just for the record, California has 88 percent of our money left, or some $800 million. Mr. Chairman, this Congress has provided generous assistance for the unemployed. In fact, we have provided extended benefits at unemployment rates well below the unemployment rate when the Democrats ended a similar extended benefits program in the 1990s. We have provided States record flexible funds to help the unemployed. I suppose the fact that States still have billions of that money left is lost on the other side. Mr. Chairman, let us reject this amendment.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to become a cosponsor of the ``Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2003,'' H.R. 3242, legislation designed to maintain a viable and competitive specialty crop industry in the United States. It is important to first note that an abundant, affordable supply of highly nutritious fruits, vegetables and other specialty crops is vital to the health of all Americans. Increased consumption of fresh produce will provide tremendous health benefits to consumers, as well as economic benefits to American farmers. It follows that a competitive specialty crop industry is necessary to produce and sustain a safe and nutritious domestic food supply. A competitive specialty crop industry is also necessary to sustain the economic vitality of rural communities in northern California, and indeed throughout the entire nation. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly difficult for U.S. producers to compete against heavily subsidized foreign producers in domestic and international markets. For example, the European Union provides subsidies of about $11.7 billion per year to its specialty crop growers, while U.S. specialty crop growers receive no subsidies. In addition, U.S. specialty crop growers continue to face tariff and non-tariff trade barriers in many export markets, thus making it virtually impossible for our growers to improve sales through increased exports. In turn, production costs have escalated due to increased environmental and other regulations, and important crop protection tools have been lost, thus making it increasingly difficult to operate profitably. Specialty crop growers from California and across the country believe federal agriculture policy must address the myriad of unique challenges facing their industry to assure its long-term viability. As such, they have joined together to craft H.R. 3242, and have requested my support. The bill is designed to increase exports of U.S. specialty crops, improve efforts to protect agriculture from damaging pests and diseases, and provide funding for research necessary for improving the competitiveness of the industry. The activities authorized by this legislation represent a prudent investment in the future success of our $58.7 billion specialty crop industry. The cost of the bill is relatively modest when compared with other agriculture programs and most other federal programs. Nevertheless, it continues to be critically important, especially during this period of budget deficits and increased spending for our ongoing War on Terrorism and homeland security, for Congress to restrain federal spending. As such, I want to work with the bill's supporters to find acceptable offsets and/or savings from other federal programs that will ensure that the funding authorized under this legislation fits within the existing budget. I look forward to working with the sponsors of the bill, Congressman Doug Ose and Congressman Cal Dooley, toward future House consideration of this important bill for California agriculture.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1904, the ``Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.'' For the Northern California Congressional District I represent, this bill is long overdue. My District comprises 5 national forests, and wildfires are an annual and growing threat. Each day, month and year that good forest management is stymied, communities are placed in greater danger. Mr. Speaker, in my view, this bill doesn't go far enough to address our monumental and compounding forest health crisis. With 190 million acres of forests at risk, and only 2 million acres being treated annually, we have to do much, much more. But it takes an important first step forward in the face of tremendous resistance from the radical environmentalists. And I want to commend my colleagues-- Chairman Pombo, Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman McInnis and Congressman Walden--for their staunch leadership and dedication in fashioning a collaborative bill that is able to win a majority of the House and Senate. President Bush also deserves a great deal of credit and thanks for his efforts in bringing our growing forest health crisis to the attention of the American public, and to the forefront of our environmental policy debate. An extraordinarily cumbersome environmental review process, which can delay forest health projects for years, has elevated the review ``process'' over good management and professional judgment. The Forest Service Chief, Dale Bosworth, testified to Congress that his agenda spends 40% of its time on planning and process activities. Litigation and an appeals process that is ripe for abuse have been utilized by radical environmental groups to stop community-supported forest health projects. A General Accounting Office study indicated that 59% of all projects eligible for appeal are appealed, the vast majority from radical environmental groups. The percentage is even higher in California. Meantime, our forests are literally burning up. Lives are being lost. Catastrophic fires are causing billions in property damage and costing the taxpayer billions in suppression and rehabilitation costs. Public health and safety demands that something be done. For too long radical environmental groups have hijacked our forests to advance their own so-called ``environmental agenda.'' Their handiwork has contributed to an immense forest health crisis where lives and property are threatened, billions of taxpayer dollars are spent to suppress destructive fires--instead of on common sense forest health projects that could prevent them--and millions are wasted on endless environmental reviews and litigation. It's high time for the rest of us to take our forests back. This bill will not solve this enormous and compounding crisis. But it takes an important step forward by streamlining environmental reviews and preventing abuses of the appeals process, which will allow urgently needed management to move forward in a small portion of our at-risk forests. It will give forest professionals the tools they desperately need, and provide positive momentum for continuing active management throughout all of our forests to restore them to a healthy condition, and address a very serious and growing threat to lives and property. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation today to ensure that burdensome regulation does not add unnecessarily to the cost of housing. The need for this legislation is brought about because the Department of Treasury has issued regulations to provide guidance on the definition of contributions in aid of construction, so called CIAC, as enacted under the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996. Despite the fact that Congress specifically removed language concerning ``customer services fees'' in its amendment in 1996, the Department added the language back into the proposed regulation specifying that such fees are not CIAC. They then defined the term very broadly to include service laterals, which traditionally and under the most common state law treatment would be considered CIAC. Because state regulators require all of the costs of new connections to be paid up front, these regulations will force water and sewerage utilities to collect the federal tax from homeowners, builders, and small municipalities. Because they collect it up front, the utility is forced to ``gross up'' the tax by collecting a tax on the tax on the tax, resulting in an over 55 percent effective tax rate. This bill will clarify prospectively that water and sewerage service laterals are included in the definition of contributions in aid of construction (CIAC). It clarifies current law by specifically stating that ``customer service fees'' are CIAC, but maintains current treatment of service charges for stopping and starting service (not CIAC). Mr. Matsui and Mrs. Johnson along with many of our colleagues here in the chamber, worked hard over the course of a number of years to restore the pre-1986 Act tax treatment for water and sewage CIAC. In 1996, we succeeded in passing legislation. It was identical to pre-1986 law with three exceptions. Two of the changes were made in response to a Treasury Department request. The third removed the language dealing with ``service connection fees'' primarily because of potential confusion resulting from the ambiguity of the term. The sponsors of the legislation were concerned that the IRS would use this ambiguity to exclude a portion of what the state regulators consider CIAC. As part of our efforts, we developed a revenue raiser in cooperation with the industry to make up any revenue loss due to our legislation, including the three changes. This revenue raiser extended the life, and changed the method, for depreciating water utility property from 20- year accelerated to 25-year straight-line depreciation. As a consequence of this sacrifice by the industry, our CIAC change made a net $274 million contribution toward deficit reduction. What is most important to keep in mind is that this unnecessary tax of over 55 percent is passed directly on to homeowners and local governments. I urge my colleagues to join with us in sponsoring this important legislation in order to ensure that American homeowners do not face further burdens.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation today to help small and family owned timber owners comply with the passive activity rules as set out in the Internal Revenue Code and the Treasury Department regulations. The current rules require a taxpayer owning timber to devote at least 500 hours per year to the tree growing business or 100 hours of personal work under an unpredictable ``facts and circumstances'' test. While the typical small grower assumes huge risk from pests, fire and wind and costs such as local property taxes, clearing and pest control, he or she would be hard pressed to devote even 100 hours a year to working in the forest. With little or no income in the years between harvests, small timber owners' expenditures become passive losses deductible many, many years in the future, severely impacting the owners' already modest cash flow. My bill would provide a narrow exception to small (80 percent owned by no more than 5 people) and family timber owners. The bill would provide an exception for these taxpayers performing fewer than 100 hours or in the instance when the owners manage a third party to perform the needed services. We must create a self-sustaining resource of trees to ensure raw materials for paper products as well as to provide a continuing supply of reasonably affordable building materials for consumers. And it is increasingly obvious that our most reliable source will be the millions of acres of privately owned forestlands. Timber farming is a long-term, high-risk venture, subject to the uncertainties of disease, fire and a highly unpredictable marketplace. My bill will ensure that small timber holders continue to be a viable part of this essential industry.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) for his outstanding leadership in crafting this bipartisan legislation, as well as commending the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the ranking member, for his work on it as well. I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation. As chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, I appreciate the dedication and commitment of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) to children's issues. Nationally, more than 18,000 children have been adopted since Congress created the Adoption Incentive Program in 1997. In my home State of California, adoptions have more than doubled. This is tremendous progress. As a result, States have received almost $160 million they can use to support families and children in distress. Despite this progress, there are still 126,000 children waiting to be adopted. This legislation will encourage States to find adoptive families for these children by continuing and improving the Adoption Incentive Program for 5 more years. I am pleased this legislation adds a new incentive to promote adoption of children age 9 or older, as the Bush administration proposed. These children are most at risk to spend their childhood in foster care and never find an adoptive family, so they deserve our special attention. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support of this legislation. I look forward to working with them to promote safe adoptive placements for children in foster care. This bill is certainly a worthy step in that direction. I urge all Members to support this excellent legislation.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this House passed a good bill to improve the child tax credit and to provide tax relief to our brave men and women in the Armed Forces. Now is not the time to abandon what we have already done. We should continue to work with the other body to resolve this issue, but we should not settle for a bill that is inferior to what was already passed by this House. Hardworking families and the military men and women who preserve our freedom deserve tax fairness today more than ever. Let us show our support for the House bill by rejecting this motion to instruct. 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, my friend is incorrect. The House bill does not give any benefits to the wealthiest 1 percent of families because the wealthiest are not eligible for the child credit. Our bill benefits low-income and middle-income families who are left out of the Democrat motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) apparently has not read the House-passed bill. The House-passed bill is the same as the motion to instruct in the treatment of low-income families. Both accelerate the refundability of the child tax credit effective this year, exactly the same as the motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). We all agree that changes need to be made in the child tax credit. The legislation passed by the House earlier this year, legislation that passed by voice vote, by the way, makes a number of beneficial changes to the child tax credit. For example, the House legislation will ensure that child credit remain at $1,000 per child through the year 2010. Under current law, the credit is scheduled to be reduced after 2004 resulting in a tax increase on American families. I hope we can all agree to keep the credit at $1,000. The House bill also eliminates the marriage penalty in the child credit. Eliminating this marriage penalty will provide more than $20 billion of tax relief to middle-income families over 11 years. The House bill enhances tax fairness for the members of the U.S. military who risk their lives to defend our freedom by granting capital gains relief on home sales, making death gratuity payments tax free, and other important provisions. Perhaps of most interest to those who are supporting the motion, the House bill increases the amount of the child tax credit that is refundable from 10 percent of income over $10,500 to 15 percent of income over this amount. Our bill would make this increase effective this year. The motion to instruct, on the other hand, would reduce the child tax credit for millions of children. It would allow the child credit to drop from $1,000 per child to $700 per child. The motion to instruct does not eliminate the marriage penalty in the child credit until 2010 and then it only does so for 1 year. Under this motion to instruct, millions of children will be denied the child credit simply because their parents are married. The House bill benefits middle-income families by eliminating the marriage penalty in the child credit immediately. Finally, let me make clear that the House passed bill does not, I repeat, does not deny the child credit to military families. Military families, including those who are deployed abroad, are already receiving a refundable child credit and will continue to receive a refundable child credit under the House bill. The motion to instruct would use a different definition of the income when determining the child credit, thus increasing the child credit for some military families. But I would note that this definition of income is different than the definition of income recommended by the prior administration, a Democratic administration. In fact, the current definition of income, as proposed by the Clinton administration, was enacted in the law in order to simplify the program and limit the potential for fraud and abuse. So let us be clear. The House bill provides more tax relief to military families because it includes $806 million in military tax benefits that are not included in the motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, we should support the very worthy legislation passed by this House and reject the motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is indeed a very important piece of legislation which keeps welfare programs that promote work and independence operating from coast to coast. It is important that those programs continue to be funded beyond their current September 30 expiration date. It is unfortunate that we have not yet reached a deal on a full 5-year welfare reform reauthorization bill that promises many improvements to the welfare reform policies now in place. The House welfare bill includes an additional $2 billion for child care so that more parents can work and more flexibility for States to spend their welfare funds, but until we get agreement on such a broader bill, we need to keep today's program operating. That is what this bill does. I urge all Members to support this legislation. 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 in support of H.R. 3146, which extends various government programs beyond the September 30 end of the fiscal year. Within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, this includes certain tax and trade programs, as well as a simple 6-month extension of key parts of the Nation's welfare system. The historic 1996 welfare reform law has been an unparalleled success. Nearly three million children have been lifted from poverty. Record shares of current and former welfare recipients are working, and welfare dependence has been cut in half. Despite the challenges facing our country, these welfare reforms continue to benefit families with children by promoting work by low- income parents. Unless we act, the authorization for key welfare programs will expire on September 30, 2003. H.R. 3146 will continue current funding for these programs through March 31, 2004. Earlier this month, a bill to reauthorize and improve our Nation's welfare program was reported out of committee in the Senate. This extension will provide the Senate more time to consider this bill and pass a broad welfare reauthorization bill. Members will recall that the House passed a broad 5-year welfare reauthorization bill in 2002. This bill was a product of intensive research and evaluation, including more than 20 hearings in the House. Key provisions focused on achieving more work, less poverty, and stronger families. However, the Senate did not act on that bill before the 107th Congress adjourned. In February 2003, the House again acted on a full 5-year welfare reform reauthorization bill and approved H.R. 4, an updated version of its 2002 bill. We continue to wait for a consensus on a long-term reauthorization of our Nation's welfare programs. In the meantime, we continue to see evidence that welfare reform continues to work. A report released in August presented key indicators of well-being for America's children that once again show positive results for our children. Birth rates for unmarried teenagers have dropped considerably since 1994. The poverty rate for children raised by single moms also has declined markedly. However, there is still more progress to be made. Today, fewer children live in married-couple families. We have seen a steadily growing stream of evidence that children do best when raised by married-couple families. That is why the House-passed welfare reform bill provides flexibility to States to promote marriage and strong families. States and families would be on the receiving end if we reach agreement on a long-term reauthorization bill. Unfortunately, the improvements included in H.R. 4 will continue to remain on hold while we pass short-term placeholder extensions. In addition to funds to promote strong families, H.R. 4, as passed by the House, also provides at least $2 billion in added child care funds over 5 years, along with more flexibility in spending cash welfare funds on child care and other needs. So long as we continue to extend our Nation's welfare system on a short-term basis, States cannot take advantage of these additional dollars or improved flexibility. The means low-income families will not see the benefits of the improvements we have proposed for the program. Ultimately, the success of the 1996 law reforms may begin to erode as well. Recognizing the importance of continuing these programs, the House and Senate have agreed to four short-term extensions of our Nation's welfare programs. However, I hope that in the next 6 months we get a comprehensive welfare reform bill to the President's desk for signature. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), 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. 3146) to extend the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program, and certain tax and trade programs, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully oppose the substitute to H.R. 7 offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). I oppose the tax increases included in the substitute. As the Subcommittee on Human Resources chairman, I also oppose increased funding in the substitute for the Social Services Block Grant. First, such funding is really a welfare, not a charitable giving, issue. In the House welfare reform bill passed in February, we continued record welfare funding despite 50 percent caseload decline since 1996. We even proposed more than $2 billion in increased funds for child care to support more parents in work and other activities. We already have proposed increased funding for welfare and related benefits in our welfare bill. Second, Members will recall we just gave States $20 billion in May in the jobs and growth tax relief bill. Of that, $10 billion can be spent however States choose, including for social services. Third, last week the General Accounting Office reported that States have $5.6 billion in unspent welfare funds today. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has been very generous in terms of funding, including for the very types of services my good friend from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) addresses as part of the welfare reform bill. One final point, we know many are insisting on more funds in exchange for continued welfare reforms. Providing more funds without achieving such reforms would inadvertently undermine the potential for getting a welfare reform deal done this year. We should resist anything that does that. I urge opposition to the substitute and support for the underlying bill.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this. I represent one of the richest agricultural areas in our Nation in northern California, the northern Sacramento Valley, just north of Sacramento. This agreement will be very, very helpful to our agricultural commodities. Singapore imports virtually all of their food products. Trade and agricultural products represent a net trade surplus for the United States. In 2002, American farmers exported around $259 million worth of food products to Singapore. By binding all of its tariffs at zero, Singapore will open its markets to American agricultural products and create new opportunities for American farmers to sell their produce to a nation whose small size prevents it from being able to grow enough food for consumption by its citizens. Again, Mr. Speaker, I feel that this would be very beneficial for our country, for their country, in general; and I urge support of this.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, concerning rollcall vote 108-364, On Agreeing to the Amendment of Representative Ron Paul of Texas to H.R. 1950, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2003: Although I was correctly recorded as voting against the passage of this amendment, which eventually failed by an overwhelming vote of 74 to 350, I would like the Congressional Record to reflect that my ``no'' vote was in error, and I would have liked to have voted ``aye'' on this provision. Specifically, Representative Paul's amendment would have prohibited funds authorized under H.R. 1950 to be used to pay any U.S. contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations. Like many, I firmly believe evidence of the need for a dramatic reevaluation of current U.N. policy is glaring. Over the years, the United States has been a host nation to the United Nations, headquartered in New York City, and has contributed greatly to the funding for the organization, including the enormous cost to the American taxpayer of deploying our military on the numerous U.N. peacekeeping missions worldwide, amounting to roughly one-quarter of the peacekeeping expenses of the 191-member body. However, recent events surrounding the ousting of Saddam Hussein's tyrannical regime in Iraq, and the inability of the United Nations to enforce its own Security Council resolutions, has renewed questions of the legitimacy of this body, as well as the necessity and level of U.S. participation in its funding and daily activities. I would also like to note that I have cosponsored a number of pieces of legislation in the House of Representatives, which, I believe, address these questions more thoroughly. While I do not object to the U.N.'s founding objectives of peace through positive discussions and diplomacy, the organization has clearly failed in this charter mission. As it currently exists, the United Nations merely provides a weighted platform to nondemocratic and anti-American nations. Perhaps a more constructive and strategically important avenue would be to pursue an entirely new federation of nations, limiting voting membership to democratic countries that share our values and goals. For these reasons, I have cosponsored H.R. 1146, introduced by Representative Ron Paul, which calls on the United States to withdraw from the United Nations entirely. I have also cosponsored two related bills, which would impact our involvement in the United Nations in lesser ways. H.R. 800 would provide for the withholding of United States contributions to any U.N. commission, organization, or affiliated agency that is chaired or presided over by a country that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism. H. Con. Res. 116 takes this bill a step further, issuing a sense of Congress that the United States should withhold all payments to the United Nations until its bylaws are amended to prevent countries whose leaders are not democratically elected from holding a position of authority within the United Nations.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, concerning Rollcall Vote 108-364, On Agreeing to the Amendment of Representative Ron Paul of Texas to H.R. 1950, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2003: Although I was correctly recorded as voting against the passage of this amendment, which eventually failed by an overwhelming vote of 74 to 350, I would like the Congressional Record to reflect that my ``No'' vote was in error, and I would have liked to have voted ``Aye'' on this provision. Specifically, Representative Paul's amendment would have prohibited funds authorized under H.R. 1950 to be used to pay any U.S. contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations. Like many, I firmly believe evidence of the need for a dramatic reevaluation of current U.N. policy is glaring. Over the years, the United States has been a host nation to the U.N., headquartered in New York City, and has contributed greatly to the funding for the organization, including the enormous cost to the American taxpayer of deploying our military on the numerous U.N. peacekeeping missions worldwide, amounting to roughly one-quarter of the peacekeeping expenses of the 191-member body. However, recent events surrounding the ousting of Saddam Hussein's tyrannical regime in Iraq, and the inability of the U.N. to enforce its own Security Council resolutions, has renewed questions of the legitimacy of this body, as well as the necessity and level of U.S. participation in its funding and daily activities. I would also like to note that I have cosponsored a number of pieces of legislation in the House of Representatives, which, I believe, address these questions more thoroughly. While I do not object to the U.N.'s founding objectives of peace through positive discussions and diplomacy, the organization has clearly failed in this charter mission. As it currently exists, the United Nations merely provides a weighted platform to non-democratic and anti-American nations. Perhaps a more constructive and strategically important avenue would be to pursue an entirely new federation of nations, limiting voting membership to democratic countries that share our values and goals. For these reasons, I have cosponsored H.R. 1146, introduced by Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), which calls on the U.S. to withdraw from the United Nations entirely. I have also cosponsored two related bills, which would impact our involvement in the U.N. in lesser ways. H.R. 800 would provide for the withholding of United States contributions to any U.N. commission, organization, or affiliated agency that is chaired or presided over by a country that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism. H. Con. Res. 116 takes this bill a step further, issuing a sense of Congress that the United States should withhold all payments to the U.N. until its bylaws are amended to prevent countries whose leaders are not democratically elected from holding a position of authority within the U.N.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, it is an incredible privilege and honor to serve in this body. This is not a happy or a proud day for any one of us. We were all here late last night until midnight. Those of us who serve on the Committee on Ways and Means, as I do, were here early this morning. I was sitting throughout the entire meeting. I was sitting up on the dias. I personally looked down and was able to see what took place, and I support our chairman in his calling for support at that time.