Wally Herger

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2357) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit churches and other houses of worship to engage in political campaigns.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this continuing resolution so that America's critical welfare reform programs and support for low-income families can continue. Welfare reform should not be forced to be part of this discussion today. The House passed a 5- year welfare reform extension bill this May. Fourteen of my colleagues across the aisle joined us in approving that bill. Now more than 4 months later, the Senate has still failed to act. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, if it were not for this continuing resolution, the greatly successful 1996 welfare reforms would expire just 4 days from now. What makes this prolonged lack of action so frustrating is that welfare reform has helped literally millions of families achieve remarkable progress in the last 6 years. The 1996 welfare reforms were the greatest social policy change success story in history. The success is indisputable. Nearly 3 million children have left poverty. Employment by mothers most likely to go on welfare rose by 40 percent. Welfare caseloads fell by 9 million. The continuing resolution before us extends for 3 months the important welfare programs depended upon by millions of low-income families. We should not have to be here today extending welfare programs, but the other body has failed to act; so we have no other choice. I encourage my colleagues to support this continuing resolution so millions of low-income families can continue to be supported in their efforts to work and support their families. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague from Tennessee, Mr. Tanner, to introduce the Tip Tax Fairness Act, a bill to require the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to accurately account for FICA taxes paid by employers on employee's tip income. As we all know, many employees in the service sector of the business community earn a substantial portion of their income from tips. Recognizing this, Congress passed legislation years ago requiring employers and employees to pay FICA payroll taxes on tip income. This ensures that an employee's total earnings are reflected in their Social Security wage history, which determines the employee's Social Security benefits upon retirement. In the IRS's effort to collect the FICA taxes they believe is owed on unreported tips, the agency has created an aggregate method for assessing employers which is inconsistent with congressional intent. Congress did not intend FICA taxes to be paid on an aggregate basis, because earnings subject to FICA taxes are intended to be credited to an employee's Social Security wage history. Under current law, employees are required to report all of their tips to their employer. The employer is required to send this information to the IRS, along with the employer and employee share of the FICA taxes owed. If the IRS believes the amount of tip income reported is not accurate the agency will audit the employer, bill the employer using an aggregate estimate, and collect the employer's portion of the FICA taxes. However, the agency does not credit the employee's Social Security wage history. By not doing so, the agency is disregarding one of the reasons Congress required employers to pay FICA taxes on tips. Furthermore, this lack of accounting on the part of the IRS, and the use of aggregate estimates, creates a dramatic shift in the burden of tax collection. Under this method, it is the employer who must determine if there was underrepomng of income, not the IRS, and the employer who must disprove an inaccurate assessment. Many service providers have expressed concerns that this shift in burden pits the employer against their own employees, effectively turning them into ``tip police.'' The bill Mr. Tanner and I are introducing today is a solution that we believe employees and employers can support. Simply stated, this legislation requires the IRS to ensure that assessments paid by employers, for FICA taxes owed on unreported tips, are credited to each affected employee's Social Security wage history. As such, this measure requires the IRS to use FICA taxes as Congress intended. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of our original cosponsors for supporting this worthy legislation.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, 4 months ago the House passed a 5-year welfare reform extension bill. Yet now, just 11 days remain before the successful Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program expires. The 1996 law lifted nearly 3 million children from poverty. It resulted in a dramatic increase in the employment and earnings of single mothers, all while reducing welfare dependence by 9 million people. Still, we know we have more work to do in the next phase of welfare reform. Some in Washington seem to be willing to allow the program to run out at the end of this month. They seem to believe a simple extension would suffice, but a simple extension of this program will not help the nearly 60 percent of the adults on welfare who are doing nothing now to engage in activities that will lead them on the road and the path from poverty to self-reliance. A simple extension will not provide $2 billion in increased child care funds to support more working low-income families, and a simple extension will not invest more in families by promoting healthy marriages and preventing the millions of children born out of wedlock from growing up without the benefit of their father. We must act now. So join us in supporting H. Res. 525. It is my sincere hope that we will soon get to a conference with the other body so we can work out our differences on this important legislation. More than 2 million low-income families in America are depending on us for help.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 378 and 379, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. We are in the midst of what could be the most costly and destructive fire season for which records have been kept. More than 3\1/2\ million acres have burned so far this year, almost 2\1/2\ times the 10-year average, and close to a million acres more than at this time in 2000 which was then the worst fire season in 50 years. It is an ominous glimpse of what the future holds if Congress and the administration do not make a dramatic commitment and take immediate steps to manage our forests aggressively to protect public health and safety. Our forests are incredibly unhealthy and literally choking from an unnatural accumulation of forest fuels. Some areas are up to 10 times denser than historically. Because of this dangerous buildup of trees, instead of the healthy fires that clean up the forest floor, we are now seeing wildfires of catastrophic size and intensity that cannot be controlled, threatening entire communities, lives and property, and leaving charred forests that will not recover for a century or more. These fires are not natural. They are not inevitable. They are not environmentally healthy. They are a very serious threat to public health and safety. According to the Forest Service's own estimates, the number of acres at risk for such catastrophic fire events has grown to alarming proportions. Today close to 80 million acres of our Federal forest lands are threatened and, Mr. Speaker, this devastating fire season is further proof that time is quickly running out. The 1999 GAO, Government Accounting Office, report that provided the first insight into the extent of our forest health crises also predicted that the window for taking effective action is quickly closing. They indicated that we have only 10 to 25 years within which to take action before these fires become widespread. We are not going to prevent forest fires, but by implementing a fire protection and fuel reduction strategy, setting aggressive goals, and giving land managers the tools and flexibility they need, we can reduce their size and intensity and give our firefighters a fighting chance. Congress approved such a plan in 1998. The Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act, which this House passed by the overwhelming margin of 429 to 1, requires implementation of a locally developed bipartisan pilot project based on a system of environmentally sensitive fuel breaks and thinning that would reduce the risk of fire and protect communities. It would protect wildlife and enhance their habitat. With a $3 return for every $1 expended and $2.1 billion in economic benefit for rural communities, it is proof that there are win-win, cost- effective fire protection solutions out there that are ripe for immediate implementation. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a critical step toward giving this emergency and the need for solutions the urgency and the serious attention they deserve. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the provisions contained in title I, section 106, page 11, line 4 beginning with the word ``Provided'' through line 9 of this bill, H.R. 5121, on the grounds that this provision violates clause 2 of House rule XXI because it is legislation included in a general appropriations bill.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, the lease land program is a perfect example of how wildlife and agriculture can thrive together. Congress recognized that balance and specifically afforded farming a special status in the national wildlife refuges of the Klamath Basin. The Kuchel Act enshrined the lease land farm program in Federal law, specifying a compromise between row and forage crops and cereal grains in a way that would satisfy the requirements of the law, including maximizing revenues to the government and to local counties, and providing food and habitat for the migrating birds and other wildlife. While couched in seemingly innocent terms, this amendment takes a short step in the direction of eliminating the lease land program by chipping away at its foundation. If we remove row crops, we remove the greatest incentive to farm and upset the balance that was established in Federal law almost 40 years ago. Moreover, this would deal another devastating economic blow to these communities, which have already suffered incredible hardship in the wake of last year's tragic water shutoff. Estimates are that these crops generated an average of approximately $10 million annually over the last 5 years. Those same acres planted to grain, as required by this amendment, would generate a little over $1 million. That is a $9 million out of $10 million loss that would cripple this community. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues with agriculture in their districts know how tenuous commodity markets are. Farmers need opportunities, not more baseless limitations. The irony here is, Mr. Chairman, that despite the gentleman's stated desires to help wildlife, their amendment would do precisely the opposite. By preventing the planting of onions, potatoes, and alfalfa, we effectively eliminate an important food source. The potatoes, which I should note the gentlemen have specifically targeted, provide a particularly important source of nutrients for geese, allowing them to migrate and breed successfully; and they remove the very mechanism, crop rotation, that allows farmers to maintain the quality of the soils, and, in turn, enhance the production of the cereal grains that provide food and habitat. That is why it is in the Kuchel Act. Claims of harm from pesticides used are simply unfounded. There is not a shred of evidence, not one, despite years of study, that lends any support whatsoever to that argument. The refuge manager himself has stated that there is ``no smoking gun.'' That is because pesticide use is severely restricted. California has the most stringent pesticide rules in the country, and over 95 percent of those allowable pesticides are prohibited on the leased lands. Despite the rhetoric of the radical environmental groups, all the evidence is exactly to the contrary. Mr. Chairman, consider this statement from the California Waterfowl Association: ``For nearly 100 years, farmers and ranchers of the Klamath Basin have co-existed with immense populations of wildlife. Many wildlife species, especially waterfowl, are familiar visitors to their highly productive farms and ranches. Klamath Basin agriculture provides a veritable nursery for wildlife.'' So if there is no harm here, if experience over the long history of this program has shown that agriculture helps and enhances wildlife, then why seek to undo the delicate balance? The only explanation is, quite simply, that this is another attempt to shrink farming in this area. Note that some of the same radical environmental groups behind this amendment were the same groups that were pursuing a similar proposal 2 years ago which would have eliminated the leases entirely. There is no doubting these groups' desire to remove agriculture from the Klamath Basin. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this anti-agriculture amendment.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4070, the Social Security Program Protection Act. This legislation contains important provisions to better protect retired and disabled Americans. In particular, I want to congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), for the changes in his bill designed to keep convicted fugitive felons from getting Social Security checks. These efforts build on legislation I authored in 1996 that blocks fugitives from getting supplemental security income, or SSI, checks. According to the Social Security Inspector General, since the 1996 changes, over 65,000 fugitives have been identified and almost 7,000 have been arrested. As a result, American taxpayers have saved an estimated $200 million. The legislation before us today takes the next step by also barring fugitives from getting Social Security checks. Some Americans receive both Social Security and SSI checks. Yet, under current law, the government stops SSI checks for fugitives while continuing to send Social Security checks, even to known fugitives. This legislation closes that fugitive loophole. Our law should help bring fugitives to justice, not subsidize their flights from justice. This bill does just that. 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. We ended SSI checks for prisoners and fugitives, and we stopped subsidizing addicts with disability checks. The changes in this legislation follow that same spirit, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, failure to pass this bill will raise taxes on low- and middle-income taxpayers by $42 billion by 2007. Mr. Speaker, when a couple stands at the altar and says ``I do,'' they are not agreeing to higher taxes; yet without relief from the marriage penalty, 36 million American couples will pay higher taxes simply because they are married. Let us be clear. It is just plain wrong to tax marriage. Unfortunately, the marriage penalty relief passed last year will expire at the end of 2010 due to arcane Senate budget rules. The legislation before us today makes this relief permanent. If we fail to enact this legislation, married couples will face a massive tax increase of $42 billion just in the year 2011 and 2012. We simply cannot allow this to happen. Under the leadership of President Bush, last year's tax bill provided married couples with significant tax relief by making sure that the standard deduction for a couple is twice that of a single taxpayer. And by allowing married couples to earn more of their income in the lower 15 percent tax bracket, making sure that our Tax Code does not discourage marriage is not just good tax policy for the next few years, it is good tax policy, period. Now is the time to make tax relief for hard-working married couples permanent. I urge my colleagues to support this very important legislation.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to the Democrats talk about the debt limit. Here are some points Members and the public should bear in mind when considering these arguments from the other side. Last week on the same floor during the debate on the Nation's welfare policy, the Democrats offered two proposals: One was a substitute welfare reform bill that called for $20 billion more in Federal welfare spending over the next five years and $70 billion more in welfare spending over the next 10 years. The second proposal was a motion to add more than $11 billion in new spending to the Republican bill. In both cases, the Democrats refused to pay for their additional spending. Let me repeat this, Mr. Chairman. The Democrats did not pay for their proposed increase in government spending. The additional costs would just get added to our national debt. In contrast, the Republican welfare bill was fully paid for within the House-passed budget. I guess the Democrats have a tough time understanding what that means since for the first time in a generation they did not have their own budget in the House. And the Democrat-controlled Senate cannot seem to get a budget done, either. All of this reflects that what is going on today is a charade. The Democrats can sure talk a good game about fiscal responsibility in general, but when it comes to specific bills that reflect their real priorities, like welfare reform last week, being responsible with taxpayers' money is the last thing on their minds.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Democrat substitute. This substitute weakens work requirements, is fiscally irresponsible and ties the hands of States. We have found from the successes of the 1996 welfare reform legislation that work is the best path from poverty to self- sufficiency. This substitute resurrects the failed AFDC program, which was weak on work and trapped recipients into a cycle of dependency. This substitute would increase welfare dependency by allowing a recipient to work as little as 2 days a week and stay on welfare forever. Without work, recipients have no hope to leave poverty and support themselves. Furthermore, the substitute is fiscally irresponsible. It would cost the working taxpayers about $20 billion over the next 5 years. Unlike the Republican plan, this amendment contains no offsets to pay for the additional spending. My friends from the other side of the aisle speak of fiscal responsibility, but show none in this substitute. In addition to being fiscally irresponsible and weak on work, the substitute places more burdens on the States and actually limits their flexibility. Over the next 5 years, States would be forced to spend more of their own money on welfare, despite the fact that rolls are going down. States must establish complicated new regulations restricting their ability to place recipients in work experiment and community service programs. Also under the substitute, the States are restricted in enforcing the expectation that recipients work. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this substitute, which represents a step back in welfare reform.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), a very active member of our subcommittee.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act, which takes the next step in welfare reform. During the welfare debate in 1996, critics predicted 1 million children would be forced into poverty and recipients would be worse off. The opposite occurred. Since 1996, nearly 3 million children left poverty. Overall, 9 million parents and children have left welfare dependence and moved on to a better life. Today we will again hear from the naysayers. They will say needy families cannot work, they must collect welfare for more than 5 years, that it is cruel to expect them to support themselves and their children like other American families. We have heard it all before. The bill before us today builds on the successful 1996 reforms. It recognizes that work is the only true path from poverty to self- sufficiency. It expects more work and allows more education and training to count as work. To support more work, we added $2 billion over 5 years for more child care. We also provided States more flexibility in how they can spend cash welfare funds on child care, including for low-income families that have never been on welfare. The bill does more to promote healthy marriage which will reduce poverty and improve child well-being. Too many children today are raised by single parents, most often by single mothers struggling mightily to get by. Compared with children raised by married parents, their children are at a disadvantage, including in terms of avoiding poverty and welfare as adults. Promoting stronger families will help break the cycle of long-term welfare dependence, and deserves our support. This legislation allows for new State flexibility, including under the State flex provisions allowing social service programs to be better aligned to better serve needy families. Yet those who now extol flexibility when it comes to not expecting more work of welfare recipients argue that governors cannot be trusted with this expanded authority. Truly amazing. Mr. Speaker, in these and many other ways, this legislation takes the next step in helping millions of families move from welfare to work. I urge all Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the architect and chairman back in 1996 of the Subcommittee on Human Resources.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation that would restore effective use of the installment method of accounting to long-term service business owners who sell their business interests. The installment method of accounting allows a seller to pay tax on the gain from a sale as the seller receives the sale proceeds. This tax treatment matches the time for paying the tax to when the seller has the cash with which to pay that tax. As many Members are aware, in the last Congress, we acted on a recommendation from the Clinton Administration to repeal the installment method of accounting for accrual basis taxpayers. Only after such change became law did we discover that we had effectively eliminated the installment method of accounting for many small business owners and, as a result, made it much more difficult for those business owners to sell their businesses. These business owners were forced to pay the entire federal income tax due on the sale of their business in the year of sale, even though the proceeds of the sale would be received over several years. This up-front demand by the government forced business owners to borrow to pay the tax or to accept lower sale prices in order to induce buyers to pay enough up-front to cover the seller's tax. To its credit, the Congress admitted its mistake and retroactively restored the installment method to accrual basis taxpayers in the Installment Tax Correction Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-573), which was enacted on December 28, 2000. While restoring the installment method for accrual method taxpayers in 2000 was the right thing to do, it did not go far enough in remedying the installment sale problems of business owners. Despite the clear policy decision by Congress in 2000 to permit sellers of businesses to use the installment method, some long-term business owners continue to be required to pay a significant portion of total taxes upon entering into an installment sale of their business, even though they have not yet received any significant part of the sale proceeds. An exception to the installment sale method of accounting requires taxpayers to pay all tax attributable to depreciation recapture in the year of a sale. This depreciation recapture rule was adopted in 1984 in order to prevent taxpayers from engaging in ``churning'' transactions, sale/leasebacks, and other tax shelter transactions involving real estate and equipment. However, the recapture provision was expanded well beyond its original purpose in 1993 in connection with legislation relating to the treatment of intangibles. Unfortunately, Congress may not have fully appreciated the consequences to sellers of business interests. In 1993, the Congress adopted rules to clarify the amortization of acquired intangibles (e.g., goodwill, going concern value). The 1993 change required intangibles to be written off over a 15-year period, but specified that any gain on the sale of the intangibles attributable to previous amortization deductions would be treated as depreciation recapture. As a result, tax on this gain must be paid immediately in the year of sale. Because these new rules generally applied to intangibles acquired after August, 1993, business owners are now only just beginning to feel the effects of the recapture rule. This rule is having a particularly adverse effect on service businesses, because intangibles such as goodwill and going concern value represent a major portion of the value of those businesses. For a simplified example, take the case of a business owner who purchased an interest in an architectural firm for $ 100 in 1993, substantially all of the value of which was attributable to going concern value. The owner, who has actively participated in the business, retires in 2009 and sells the business for $200, payable in ten equal annual installments. This sale would produce $100 of capital gain (at an assumed tax rate of 20 percent) and $100 of ordinary income (at an assumed tax rate of 33 percent), generating a total tax of S53. Because of the intangibles recapture rule, the seller will have to pay $35, or 66 percent of the total tax, in the first year, despite having received only 10 percent of the sale proceeds in that year. This result is clearly inequitable and defeats the purpose of allowing business owners to use the installment method of reporting gain from the sale of the business. Moreover, the result is especially harsh in cases where a business owner is retiring and selling the business. My bill would allow a long-term active participant in a service business to report intangibles recapture gain on the installment basis along with other gain from the sale. The legislation would not change the character of any gain. As such, intangibles recapture gain would continue to be ordinary income to reflect the fact that it previously gave rise to an ordinary deduction. The bill is limited to long-term participants because they are the individuals who would otherwise be likely to suffer the greatest hardship under the recapture rule and who are most likely to be relying on installment sale payments to supplement their retirement income. Specifically, my bill would allow an individual who has been an active participant for five of the prior seven years in a business in which capital is not a material incomeproducing factor (i.e., a service business) to report on the installment basis any intangibles recapture income resulting from the disposition of an interest in the business. Because this proposal does not apply to depreciation recapture from tangible property, the proposal does not conflict with the original goals of Congress in adopting the depreciation recapture exception to the installment sale rules. Specifically, this is not a change that would permit tax sheltering through any sort of ``churning'' transactions. While this proposal does not address all of the potential cases in which the installment sale method is unavailable upon the sale of a business, it does go a long way towards addressing one of the most egregious situations. I urge my colleagues to support this worthy legislation.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be part of the effort to strengthen the historic 1996 welfare reform law, TANF, or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. Since 1996, nearly 3 million children have been lifted from poverty. Nine million citizens have left the welfare rolls altogether. And the black child poverty rate is at its lowest point in history. Mr. Speaker, over the past 6 years, we have found that a paycheck is the best path from poverty to self-sufficiency. The Republican plan and the President's plan will help even more low-income parents know the dignity that comes from a paycheck instead of a welfare check. Through welfare reform, we can assist even more low-income Americans improve the quality of their lives for themselves and their children.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Small Business Expensing Improvement Act of 2002,'' legislation to assist small businesses with the cost of new business investment. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Mr. Tanner, as well as several other of my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee. 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. On March 19 of this year, President Bush unveiled his small business proposal. I applaud the President for his commitment to our nation's small business owners and his dedication to ensure that our tax laws do not impede the growth and development of small businesses. The legislation we are introducing today will implement a key element of the President's plan, expansion of the benefits available to small businesses under Internal Revenue Code Section 179. Our bill will improve our tax laws to make it easier for small businesses to make the crucial investments in new equipment necessary for continued prosperity. Under Code Section 179, a small business is allowed to expense the first $24,000 in new business investment in a year. Our legislation will permanently increase this amount to $40,000. Furthermore, our bill will index this amount to ensure that the value of this provision is not eroded over time. This legislation will also allow more small businesses to take advantage of expensing by increasing from $200,000 to $325,000 the total amount a business may invest in a year and qualify for Section 179. It is important to note that this amount has not been adjusted for inflation since its enacting into law in 1986. The ``Small Business Expensing Improvement Act'' also improves the small business expensing provision by following the recommendations of the IRS National Taxpayer Advocate in his 2000 Annual Report to Congress. Specifically, our legislation clarifies that residential rental personal property and off-the-shelf computer software qualify for expensing under Section 179. Mr. Speaker, in times of economic uncertainty, we must do all we can to encourage new investment and job creation. The ``Small Business Expensing Improvement Act of 2002'' will help accomplish this worthy goal, and I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, each of us remembers last summer's dramatic national headlines about the several Federal biologists who turned off 100 percent of the water to hundreds of family farmers in the Klamath Basin of northern California and southern Oregon and shut down an entire community. This week the National Academy of Sciences, perhaps the most highly respected scientific body in this country, has concluded, quote, ``There was no scientific or technical information to justify that decision.'' Let me repeat that statement, Mr. Speaker. There was no scientific or technical information to justify the decision that stripped 1,500 family farmers of their livelihoods, drove a community of 70,000 to the brink of economic collapse, and caused irreparable social harm and changed the lives of thousands of people forever. All of this was done, Mr. Speaker, because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service biologists merely theorized that withholding water deliveries would benefit the fish. There were no certain facts to back up those theories. There was no hard evidence, no historical proof, only guesswork. In fact, the historical proof told them the opposite, but they consciously chose to ignore it. And the steps they said had to be taken, the Academy's report tells us, are probably harmful. How could the Academy have reached such a vastly different conclusion? Because, Mr. Speaker, the Klamath Basin tragedy is nothing short of scientific sabotage. The radical environmentalists have hijacked the Endangered Species Act, a well-meaning species protection measure, and are using it as a political tool, a bludgeon against rural Americans to advance a radical political agenda. Mr. Speaker, I am an environmentalist. The ranchers in my district of northern California are environmentalists. Klamath Basin farmers are environmentalists. In fact, one could not find a group of people who have worked harder to preserve the environment for fish, for birds, and for wildlife refuges in their area. No one knows the land better. No one cares for it more than those who depend upon it for their survival. Americans should be outraged. We do not have to sacrifice the well- being of our citizens to protect species in this country. It does not have to be an either-or proposition. You see, through fish screens, improvements to water quality, and other common-sense steps, we could have found a solution that would have enabled Klamath Basin fish and farmers to get well together without callously taking 100 percent of their water away from these communities. The dirty truth is the radical environmentalists do not want balance, and species protection is not necessarily their goal. They want to bankrupt farmers and other rural Americans because they want the water and they want the land, and they are misusing the Endangered Species Act to that eminently destructive end. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to plead with my colleagues that they take a hard look at how the Endangered Species Act is being used as a political tool, and to recognize that it is no longer working as a species protective tool. Many of us have long observed this happening. This week's National Academy of Sciences study lends incredible proof for the Nation to see. Our farmers must be made whole for the economic losses that they have sustained. The administration must act immediately to ensure full water deliveries. We must also demand updates in the law that will guarantee that future species decisions will be solidly grounded in fact, just by sound science, tested and supported by available evidence. Only then will we be able to truly protect the environment and ensure that American citizens are protected from the calculated misuse of the law.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the economic security and worker assistance package. This legislation will give our economy an urgently needed boost and will provide displaced workers with additional financial assistance in these uncertain economic times. Specifically, this bill will allow Americans to keep more of their hard earned dollars by deducing the 27 percent tax rate to 25 percent beginning in 2002. This legislation will encourage new business investment by allowing companies to more quickly recover the cost of their investments, allowing small businesses to expense more of their equipment purchases. In all, this legislation will inject nearly $90 billion of economic stimulus into our economy next year. This package also provides significant new assistance to unemployed workers. Under the proposal, displaced workers will receive up to 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits, and an additional $9 billion in surplus Federal unemployment funds will be made available to States. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for all his hard work in this area. This bill is a carefully crafted compromise, supported by a number of centrist Senate Democrats and is a result of weeks of negotiation. Mr. Speaker, let us pass this bill and send a message to the Senate and the Senate Democrat leadership, which has refused to pass this legislation, that the American economy and American workers cannot wait any longer, and that it is time to act and act now.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, this is without a doubt one of the most important votes any of us will cast this Congress. Today we are deciding whether or not we will give American workers and American companies the support they need to open international markets. Nowhere is trade more important than on the farm. Last year, more than $140 million worth of dried plums, $600 million worth of almonds, were exported from the State of California, much of it from my northern California district. California exports 80 percent of its cotton, 70 percent of its almonds, and 40 percent of its rice, yet our farmers face an average tariff rate of 62 percent. These barriers will never be eliminated until we give the President Trade Promotion Authority. I strongly urge my colleagues to support TPA.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague from Oregon, Representative Greg Walden, for his hard work on this important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, the idea behind this bill is a simple one. Requiring Klamath Basin farmers, already beset by extreme financial hardship, to pay the costs of operating and maintaining the Klamath Project, from which they received no water this year, would simply add insult to an already serious injury. Unfortunately, this money is a mere drop in the bucket of the more than $220 million in financial suffering the family farmers and small business owners in this area have had to endure because of the Endangered Species Act. But it is important. It is important because it will provide a measure of economic relief to farmers and others struggling to survive financially in the face of this unmitigated government-caused disaster. It also sets an important policy that this Congress must continue to ardently pursue--that the federal government should be financially accountable for the economic and social harm it causes by virtue of its misguided regulatory decisions. Fortunately for the farmers on the California side of the Basin, earlier this year the State of California passed an emergency relief bill, which contained $3 million to compensate the Tulelake Irrigation District (TID) in California for its operation and maintenance costs (O&M). H.R. 2828 attempts to account for this state action. It includes language designed to offset any money due under its provisions against any other O&M reimbursement a qualifying entity may have otherwise received pursuant to state law. This intent behind this provision is narrow. It seeks only to prevent any water district that may have already received an O&M reimbursement, including the TID, from receiving a second payment. Congress continues to recognize that the TID and other California farmers were subject to the same zero water decision as those farmers who will receive compensation under H.R. 2828 and, as such, have suffered the same and equally difficult financial hardships. As such, the policies and principles underlying H.R. 2828 should apply equally as to Klamath Basin water districts. Accordingly, the record should reflect that H.R. 2828 obligates the Secretary to treat any district that may have been reimbursed for O&M the same in all respects under the bill as those not receiving such state benefits, and to continue working in good faith with the TID to relieve any and all other burdens associated with federal O&M for the 2001 water year. Again, I would like to thank my colleague for his work on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.