Wally Herger

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, the White House would like the American public and this Congress to believe that the national debt is going down under their recently released fiscal year 2000 budget. But let us look at page 389 of the President's very own budget from his Office of Management and Budget. We see that the total national debt not only does not go down but, in fact, is actually going up each year for the next 5 years to the tune of $1.3 trillion. Just last week I asked the President's Budget Director, Jacob Lew, during a Committee on the Budget hearing, about this, and he was evasive about the fact that the President's own budget calls for $1.3 trillion more in total debt on our children and grandchildren. I then asked Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the next day during a Ways and Means hearing, the same question, and Secretary Rubin refused to answer a yes or no question about whether the total debt is actually going up. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton and his administration are grossly misleading the American people when they say the public debt is going down. They are telling a half truth. The President and his administration are correct in saying the public debt will go down, but what they are not telling us is that the total debt, the debt held by the government for Social Security and other trust funds, is going up at an even faster rate, which makes the total debt go up by, yes, $1.3 trillion over the next 5 years. No matter if the debt is held by the public or in various trust funds, it is still debt that must be paid back at some future point. The Clinton administration is doing future generations no favors in this budget. More accurately, it is dishonest and disingenuous for the Clinton-Gore administration to tout huge surpluses on one hand when, on the other, their budget places even more debt on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren. And as if forcing $1.3 trillion in more debt on future generations was not enough, the President's budget called for a net tax increase of $45.8 billion, and requests an additional $150 billion in new spending over the next 5 years. Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of this Congress to stop this assault on our future generations and all taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to amend the President's budget and to live within our means and to begin paying down our $5.5 trillion national debt.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress this vote is one of the most solemn, serious and important decisions each of us will ever make and one I cast only under a profound sense of constitutional duty. In 1776, Thomas Paine in his pamphlet Common Sense wrote, quote: ``For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king.'' Mr. Speaker, our Nation was created in part because our founders were forced to live under one set of laws while our rulers lived under another. The equal application of the rule of law has become the principle upon which our entire legal system is based. I believe the facts clearly indicate that President Clinton has committed the very serious felonies of perjury and obstruction of justice and in so doing has violated the trust of the American people. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely critical that all Americans, including and especially the President of the United States, obey the law. Bill Clinton is our President, not our king. He is not above the law. To allow our chief law enforcement officer to commit these felonies without facing serious consequences is to send a dangerous message to all Americans that there are again two standards of justice in America, one for the President and one for the rest of us. Mr. Speaker, we have a constitutional obligation to apply the law to the President just as we would apply it to any other American. I believe we have no other choice but to vote aye on these articles of impeachment.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. It is, indeed, a privilege and an honor that I consider to be able to stand here today. I was just thinking back at the speakers we have had, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), to name a few. I think about, as we were trying to arrange this, and mainly you, Mr. Doolittle, I want to thank you for taking the time to take the initiative to set this up this evening, but I think as we were talking about it over the last week or so and we were wondering, gee, we need to try to do it sometime in between votes so that we will have some Members around. What we did want to do, it has been at least three hours since our last vote, was get Members around that would be able to express themselves. And just the fact that we have had this many Members this long after our last vote, I think really says so much for you, Frank, my very good friend and colleague. As we hear sometimes in the Rush Limbaugh show, we will hear someone who agrees with what was being said, they will say ditto. I just have to, I hear the different things that went on, very few people outside those who have actually served in the House of Representatives or in Congress really know what goes in to the job of being a Member of Congress. It seems like a pretty neat job, which it is. But all the time away from home, I heard you talk about how your first term here, how you roomed together. The families back in California, we are 3000 miles away, 3 time zones away, all the time that is here. Then when we get back to our district, Frank represents a district that is very similar to my own, very large, and yours as well, very large geographically. I think that when we are, even when we are so-called at home, we are really not at home. We are out traveling around in one city or another that may be 200 miles away within our district, talking to this rotary group or some other group here or there. And really, the time that is taken away from our family is really a major sacrifice on the part of anyone. So I can certainly understand why it would be that you would be leaving us. We hear all this, you would almost think that we are speaking at a funeral. Obviously, we are not. Frank is going to have a very glorious life after Congress here, and we certainly wish you the very best. But, Frank, I want to thank you in a number of different areas for being the friend to me that you have been. You were, right off the bat, as you know, there have not been that many friends to those who live in our timber-dependent communities of the United States, certainly in California. And for so long there was maybe John Doolittle, Bob Smith, north of me, myself were about all there were for a number of terms, several terms when I first served here, out of 435. And how welcome it was when Frank Riggs was elected. Now, we had someone else that was fighting for, as Mr. Bilbray pointed out, to bring about the, to make our decisions on forest health and forest practices based on science, the most recent science, the most current science, not just on politics and what was politically popular in Washington or nationally, but what indeed was in the best interest for our national forests and for the people who live there, the real people, the fathers, the mothers, the children who work there, who have been working and living there for three and four and five generations. Again, our districts are very similar that way. I have parts of all of 12 national forests. I know you have a number of national forests there along the beautiful Pacific Ocean right adjacent to mine. I want to thank you for always being a voice for what was right, for someone who would do your homework and find out what the facts were and make your decisions accordingly. I want to thank you for that. Many a time we have stood together, albeit not very many of us standing in this 435-Member House, but nonetheless we would be up there fighting the battle. And I would always know I could count on Frank Riggs to be there with me. Again, Frank, you have been a friend in so many, many different ways. I also have to mention another great joy, again there are so many things we do and it is an incredible job we have. As I know you do, consider this one of the greatest privileges that anyone can have, to represent citizens, 570,000 approximately in our congressional districts here in Washington, D.C. But one of the nice things that we do each year is have our annual charity baseball game. This is not a softball game. This is baseball. It has been being played for many, many years. And even back when we were a minority, and I spent my first 6 years here in the, first 8 years here in the minority, about the only thing that we as Republicans were able to win at was baseball. We used to beat the other side. We were beginning to lose a few games, and then Frank Riggs was elected. And boy, were you an asset. Thank goodness you came out to our baseball team, that magic, golden glove that you had playing short stop, that wonderful bat you had batting third in the lineup. That is our power hitter. Again, it was just a pleasure not only to serve with you here but to serve with you on the congressional baseball team. As I recall, we won most of those games and we did win the trophy, the best of five games. And at the same time, able to donate in the vicinity of $60,000 each year, as we have done, to the Children's Hospital and other good causes. Again, Frank, I want to thank you. I want to thank your wife, Cathy, and your family for all the effort you have given to serve our Nation. We will sorely miss you but, again, I am looking forward to visiting with you. I know our friendship will go on for many, many years after you leave here, after you graduate from the Congress here. I am looking forward to that. Again, thank you on behalf of myself, my colleagues and our Nation and certainly Northern California. Thank you for your great effort.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, today we have a choice. We can stand with those who think that Washington knows best or we can stand with our Nation's husbands and wives who are punished by the marriage penalty, with our farmers and ranchers who are hard hit by the death tax, with our Nation's small businesses which today cannot fully deduct the cost of their health insurance, and with our Nation's seniors who see their Social Security benefits reduced just for earning outside income. In short, we can stand with those who defend today's record high tax burden or we can stand with the hard-working middle class. Mr. Speaker, to vote ``no'' on this bill is to deny 48 million married taxpayers relief from the marriage penalty. I remind my colleagues that when a couple stands at the altar and says ``I do,'' they are not agreeing to higher taxes. To vote ``no'' on this bill is to deny farmers and ranchers much- needed relief from the death tax, to vote ``no'' on this bill is to deny our small businesses the opportunity to deduct 100 percent of the cost of their health insurance, and to vote ``no'' on this bill is to deny seniors a chance to earn a little more outside income without facing the loss of their Social Security benefits. Today we can vote to do all of this while, at the same time, setting aside 90 percent of our surplus until we save Social Security. I would urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, do not turn your backs on the middle class. Support this crucially important legislation.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by respectfully pointing out that the gentleman from Michigan voted just last week on the floor of the House to spend part of that surplus on agricultural disaster relief. If it is okay to spend part of the surplus, why is the gentleman proposing to punish farmers and ranchers by denying them tax relief now? Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Republican plan to save Social Security and reduce our Nation's record high tax burden. We are also dedicated to fulfilling our commitment to our Nation's seniors as our plan sets aside the vast majority, some 90 percent of our entire expected surplus until we agree on a plan to save Social Security. At the same time, we believe it is entirely appropriate to return at least a small portion, some 10 percent of this projected surplus, to those who created it in the first place, hard-working American taxpayers. According to the Congressional Budget Office, taxes are now higher than they have been at any other time in America's peacetime history. So to my friends on the other side of the aisle who say we should not use even one penny of our Nation's surplus to provide middle class tax relief, I say, yes, we do have crucially important task ahead of us in saving Social Security, and our plan sets aside $1.4 trillion to do precisely that. But, at the same time, we should, at least at this time, not pass up this opportunity to provide 48 million married taxpayers relief from the marriage penalty. After all, when a couple stands at the alter and says ``I do,'' they are not agreeing to higher taxes. And why should we deny Americans new incentives to save? Why should we deny farmers and ranchers relief from the death tax? Why should we deny the self-employed the opportunity to fully deduct the cost of their health insurance? And why should we deny seniors a chance to earn a little more outside income without facing the loss of their Social Security benefits? Today we have the opportunity to do all of this, while at the same time setting aside 90 percent of our surplus to save Social Security. I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, please, do not turn your back on husbands and wives; do not turn your backs on farmers and ranchers; and do not turn your backs on seniors and small businesses in your districts. Support the Republican plan to reduce America's record high tax burden and, at the same time, save Social Security.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my sincere best wishes for Vic Fazio who is departing the Chamber after many years of dedicated service. I have known Vic for over 20 years now, and I can say that I have genuine and the utmost of respect for Vic Fazio. He is a man of intellect, a man of sincerity, a talented legislator, but above all Vic is a true gentleman. Although we have not always seen eye to eye on all the issues, we both share a bond, our love for northern California, and the recognition that our part of the State is truly a special place. Vic has always been acutely aware of the relevant issues, whether we were dealing with agriculture, water issues or timber matters. Vic has an amazing insight into the needs and people of California. I will truly miss you, Vic, and the examples you have set for other Members. Your leadership and dedication for the people of northern California is certainly appreciated. I always knew when I was working with Vic Fazio that when you gave your word to me, I could trust you completely. I always knew I could count on you to be completely straightforward. That kind of honesty is refreshing. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased we all have this opportunity today to bid farewell to a man who will be missed more than he knows. It is sometimes easy to forget that regardless of your political stances, we are all here to do the work of the American people. Vic Fazio, thank you for reminding us of that, and thank you for your hard work for northern California and for our Nation.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, last summer Congress passed the Taxpayer Relief Act. This legislation cuts taxes on every stage of life, providing for a $500 per child tax credit, a reduction on the family farm and family businesses at the same time of death, and a reduction in the tax on capital gains. But Congress should go further. America is overtaxed. Not only is America overtaxed, but middle class families in particular are overtaxed. The economy is projected to produce a significant surplus over the next 5 to 10 years, and Congress should use some of that money for tax cuts. There are many politicians in Washington who cannot wait to get their hands on that surplus so they can do what they always do with taxpayers' money, spend it. Washington is not careful with the taxpayers' money. It wastes too much, and it never seems to be held accountable for its failures. It is time to change direction. We need to pass further tax relief, and we need to hold the line on spending. I urge my colleagues to support the Republican package of middle-class tax cuts.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, today I join with my colleague Mr. Matsui and our cosponsors--Mr. Ensign, Mr. McCrery, Mr. McDermott, Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Dooley, Mr. Gibbons, and Mr. Blumenauer--to announce the introduction of ``The Biomass Energy Equity Act of 1998,'' legislation that will help sustain the economic and environmental benefits provided to the public by the biomass power industry in the United States. The biomass power industry is a unique source of renewable electricity. It generates electricity by combusting wood waste and other non-hazardous, organic materials under environmentally-controlled conditions as an alternative to disposal or open-incineration of these materials. In effect, the biomass power industry makes constructive use of waste materials that would otherwise become a public liability. Mr. Speaker, the organic materials used as fuel by this industry are gathered from the agricultural and forest-related sectors of our economy and from our urban waste streams. In addition to the jobs that are generated by this activity, a range of quantifiable benefits arise: the risk and severity of forest fires is diminished, air pollution from open burning of agricultural residues is avoided, and landfill space is preserved. In the absence of this $7 billion per year industry, the nation would face a series of negative consequences above and beyond the loss of the renewable electricity itself. Congress recognized the importance of the biomass power industry when it enacted a biomass energy production tax credit in 1992. Unfortunately, the production tax credit provided by this code section--due for expiration within a year--has never been accessible to the biomass power industry due to excessively narrow drafting. Our legislation corrects this defect in order to recognize and retain the public benefits, including the national security and system reliability benefits, of this important industry. Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that this is a ``good government'' issue whose clear merits and environmental benefits transcend partisan and regional politics, and I would urge all of my colleagues--on both sides of the aisle--to cosponsor this important and much-needed legislation.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 368, I inadvertently voted ``no'', when I meant to vote ``aye'' and I would like the Record to reflect my true intentions. Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Horn to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, it has come to my understanding that after debating this issue the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse) is going to pull her amendment without allowing it to go for a vote. I understand why the gentlewoman is not going to let this come to a vote. She clearly does not have the votes in the House to support this extreme radical measure. For years we have argued and debated over possible corporate welfare within the Forest Service road credit purchaser program. As of this year, this program no longer exists. Now we learn the argument was really not over the road credit purchaser program but was really over the extremist agenda of advocating zero cut on our national forests, a euphemism for which is below-cost timber sales. This policy strips the Forest Service of its single most effective tool for maintaining forest health and reducing the risk of catastrophic fire. The Forest Service estimates that more than 40 million acres of our national forests are threatened with destruction by catastrophic wildfire. With a full range of management options, the Forest Service can reduce this threat of catastrophic fire. I would like to ask my colleagues which of these two forests that we have pictures of would they want for their children? On the left we see a forest that is not managed. Now, I might mention that I represent a district in northern California that has 11 national forests in it. I have examples of both of these forests within my district. Again, the picture on the left is an unmanaged forest. We know a lot about all the rain we have been receiving, at least in California, this year. What we do not remember, sometimes we forget that of the last 12 years, 7 of those 12 years have been drought years. California, unlike so much of the rest of the Nation, is a desert during the summertime, and when there is this competition for moisture, what we see is this unnatural type of state that we see on the left. Without the ability to be able to go in and thin these forests out and remove the dead and dying timber, what we will see, rather than the forest on the right, which is a managed forest, where we remove dead and dying timbers, what we see is a situation like this. In 1994, in the United States, we had 5 million acres of timber that burned; that were catastrophic; where there is nothing left. In 1996 we had 6 million acres burned. So it is really up to us. Are we going to manage our forests in a prudent way or are we going to allow them to burn, as we see in this picture to my left? I am very pleased, again, that the gentlewoman from Oregon has removed this very ill thought out amendment of hers, but I believe it is time that we begin to bring balance to the management of our forests and not allow the extreme environmentalists to run it by politics.

Mr. HERGER

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

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words to speak in support of the Sanders amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment increases payments in lieu of taxes funding for counties and schools by $20 million for fiscal year 1999. More than 20 years ago this Congress recognized a serious inequity that existed in areas containing a high percentage of Federal property. Because the Federal Government does not pay taxes on its own property, these areas were left without any source of funding to provide for local schools and county services. In 1976, we attempted to correct this inequity and provided funding in the form of payments in lieu of taxes, or PILT payments. However, since providing these payments, this Congress has failed to fully fund the PILT program. Each year 1,789 communities in 49 States lose needed Federal payments due to the failure of the Federal Government to appropriately compensate these communities for lost property tax revenue on federally owned lands. The Sanders amendment corrects this shortcoming and provides an increase of necessary funding for communities in my own State of California. To put this into perspective, many of the areas that will receive this funding were under water in January of 1997, when midwinter storms caused severe flooding. At that time the State of California suffered approximately $1.8 billion in damage. Each of the 10 counties in my district was declared a natural disaster area. The additional dollars in PILT payments are sorely needed to rebuild after the serious disaster. There are other reasons, however, to support this amendment. This money goes directly to local schools and rural counties who can least afford any loss of funding. In one California county recent funding losses have forced a school district to completely cut out extracurricular activities, including sports and field trips, food service for one of its elementary schools, library services, two-thirds of its transportation services, all fine arts programs, teacher training courses, its school nurse program and all capital expenditures. If these same cuts had been made in an urban and inner city area, lawsuits would have been filed and services leveled would have necessarily been restored. Mr. Chairman, we hear a lot of discussion over the need for Medicare and the need to provide medical services for many of our elderly residents. Before any of our citizens can receive Medicare or Medicaid assistance, they first must have roads to travel on to get to the hospitals, ambulances to carry them in, when needed, and hospitals to go to. By underfunding our rural counties, we have forced these counties to cut back on these kinds of county services. Other county services that have been cut include search and rescue, law enforcement, snow plowing, bridge maintenance and all local ground support for maintenance of Federal lands. If these county services were to go away, the Federal Government would not have an infrastructure in place to service its public lands. When visitors get lost on public lands, it is the county search and rescue that comes to their aid, and when visitors on public lands need police protection, that need is filled by county services. Mr. Chairman, I support the Sanders amendment because it gives necessary assistance to counties otherwise left without a source of funding. I urge my colleagues to vote for public schools and county services by supporting this amendment.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the veto message of the President, together with the accompanying bill, H.R. 2646, be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of ``The Criminal Welfare Prevention Act, Part III''--the third in a series of legislative initiatives I have sponsored to help cut off fraudulent federal benefits to prisoners in state and local jails. Because of the original ``Criminal Welfare Prevention Act''-- legislation I introduced during the 104th Congress which was enacted as part of welfare reform in 1996--an effective new incentive system is now in place that enables the Social Security Administration (SSA) to detect and cut off fraudulent Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security (OASDI) benefits that would otherwise be issued to prisoners. That provision established monetary incentives for state and local law enforcement authorities to enter into voluntary data-sharing contracts with SSA. Now, participating local authorities can elect to provide the Social Security numbers of their inmates to the Social Security Administration. If SSA identifies any ``matches''--instances where inmates are fraudulently collecting SSI benefits--SSA now cuts off those benefits and the participating local authority receives a cash payment of as much as $400. Participation in these data-sharing contracts is strictly voluntary; they do not involve any unfunded federal mandates. According to a recent estimate by SSA's Inspector General, this initiative could help save taxpayers as much as $3.46 billion through the year 2001. Mr. Speaker, on June 4th of this year, the House passed my follow-up legislation, ``The Criminal Welfare Prevention Act, Part II.'' This proposal would encourage even more sheriffs to become involved in fraud-prevention by extending the $400 incentive payments to intercepted Social Security (OASDI) checks as well. This provision-- included as Section 7 of ``The Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Act''--is now awaiting action in the Senate. Despite this important progress, Mr. Speaker, our work is still not complete. In addition to establishing the new system of monetary incentives, the original Criminal Welfare Prevention Act also authorized the SSA to share the agency's augmented prisoner database with other federal agencies so that similar inmate fraud could be prevented in other federal and federally-assisted benefit programs. In April of this year, President Clinton issued an executive memorandum directing the SSA to act on its newly-granted authority and to make its database available by November 1st. This action, if faithfully executed, could potentially uncover a tremendous number of fraudulent benefit checks that would otherwise be issued to prisoners by the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Labor, Veterans' Affairs, and others. In fact, according to Administration estimates, this could save taxpayers an additional $500 million over five years. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the President for joining this important fight against fraud in our nation's federal programs. However, because fraud prevention has not historically been a top priority at the SSA, I believe that Congress should nonetheless move to codify this administrative action into law. The Criminal Welfare Prevention Act, Part III is quite straightforward. It would simply require the SSA to share its prisoner database with other federal departments and agencies to help prevent the continued payment of other fraudulent benefits (i.e., food stamps, veterans' benefits, education aid, etc.) to prisoners. I would urge all of my colleagues--on both sides of the aisle--to cosponsor this important legislation and to remind criminals that crime isn't supposed to pay.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, the market access program, or MAP, provides a valuable service, not only to American farmers, but to the entire American economy. Currently, MAP yields returns of $2 to $7 to the American economy for every dollar of MAP funds spent overseas. The program is aimed at increasing American exports and jobs by helping maintain, develop, and expand U.S. agriculture export markets. In doing this, MAP requires all funds to be used to promote only American grown and produced commodities and related products. MAP does not fund large multinational corporations, such as McDonalds. Instead, this program, by law, excludes foreign, for-profit companies and focuses on American small businesses. The only for-profit companies allowed to receive MAP funds are small businesses, nonprofit industry organizations, and private firms not represented by an industry group. Even then, MAP is not a straight handout, but is a valuable cost- share program, where participants are required to contribute toward total program costs from 10 percent for generic products to up to 50 percent or more for brand name products. MAP was established under the 1990 Farm Act to target primarily value-added products. With traditional commodity support programs being phased out through 2002, MAP will be used as an important tool to increase export markets and help stabilize commodity prices. MAP is a proven success. Since 1986, when MAP's predecessor, the targeted Export Assistance Program, was first authorized, U.S. agricultural exports have doubled. In 1997 exports amounted to $57.3 billion, resulting in a $22 million agricultural trade surplus, and providing jobs for approximately 1 million Americans. MAP's success has occurred in spite of increased international competition. Other organizations, such as the European Union, or EU, have aggressively outspent the United States in promoting agricultural commodities. In 1997, the EU budgeted $7.2 billion for export subsidies. The EU and other foreign competitors also spent nearly $500 million on market promotion. However, through promotional campaigns funded in part by MAP, American agriculture can be immensely successful in foreign markets. Mr. Chairman, this program works and it works well. It is targeted at assisting American small businesses to gain fair access to foreign markets. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote for American jobs, to vote for American small businesses, and to vote for support of the Market Access Program.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for this budget resolution. It is amazing just how far we have come over the past 4 years. Just prior to the new leadership taking over our Congress 4 years ago, we had the largest tax increase in our Nation's history of $270 billion. I might mention to the gentleman from South Carolina that is why virtually no Republican voted for that bill. It also was an attempt, a Federal attempt, to take over the health care industry of our Nation, one-seventh of our entire economy. That is also why we did not support it. It had in it a deficit of $203 billion. In contrast, this last year with the new Congress, we passed a historic budget agreement which placed in law our present steadfast commitment to a balancing for the first time in 30 years the Federal budget. The Congressional Budget Office projects not a $203 billion deficit as it was under the last Congress but a $43 billion to $63 billion surplus this year. This Congress has also passed the largest tax decrease in 16 years of $95 billion. While much progress has been made, some still subscribe to the failed budget policies of the past. Mr. Chairman, the President's budget calls for $129 billion in tax increases over 5 years, more than $150 billion in new spending, and 85 new spending programs. We have a different vision. We know the Federal Government is still too big, too inefficient, and too intrusive in our lives. This budget reduces the rate of growth of government by only one penny out of $1 over the next 5 years. Making the Federal Government tighten its belt for a change will allow us to completely eliminate the marriage penalty, and save 21 million American couples an average of $1,400 each year in taxes. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to help build upon our progress, and vote for this budget resolution.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate a chance to address the body.

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

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to announce the introduction of ``The Death Tax Inflation Adjustment Act,'' legislation which would provide an annual cost-of-living adjustment for the unified credit--a major estate tax reduction tool--beginning in 2007. Despite a tax system that discourages savings, many American families work hard to set aside a portion of their earnings because they hope to be able to leave something to their children. Not only are these lifelong savings subject to the death tax, however, but the value of the unified credit--a major death tax reduction tool--had, until recently, been seriously eroded by inflation. As a result of the historic ``Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997,'' the unified credit will now be increased from an effective exemption of $600,000 in 1998 to an effective exemption of $1,000,000 in 2006. Regrettably, while both the House--and Senate-passed versions of that landmark tax reduction package indexed this $1,000,000 exemption annually for inflation, this provision was dropped from the final conference report and was not enacted into law. My Speaker, the legislation I am introducing today would simply provide for an annual cost-of living adjustment to the unified credit beginning in 2007. While many of us in Congress would like to eliminate the death tax entirely, I hope we can all at least agree that the value of this important benefit should never again be eaten away by inflation. The time to act is now. I would urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor ``The Death Tax Inflation Adjustment Act.''

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share a great loss with my colleagues. On April 11 of this year our country lost Clair Hill, a man I was privileged to call a personal friend. Clair Hill's death is an incredible loss to our community, State, and Nation. He was a legend in his own time. Clair Hill was an internationally renowned engineer who was the major contributor to California's water supply planning and management. Mr. Hill worked on California's water issues most of his great life, and he is one of the principal authors of the original California water plan developed in the 1940s. Clair Hill was born in 1909 in Redding, California, located within my congressional district. A personal friend of mine, Mr. Hill was the founder and president of Clair A. Hill & Associates, an engineering firm that merged with CH2M in 1971 to form CH2M Hill. Mr. Hill, who spent much of his life in Redding, died there on April 11, 1998, at the age of 89. The father of two sons, he was married to his wife, Joan, since July of 1935. Clair Hill was an avid outdoorsman, horse enthusiast, and world traveler. Clair Hill studied forestry at Oregon State University, working in the northern California logging camps during the summers. However, engineering was his eventual calling, and Mr. Hill graduated with a civil engineering degree from Stanford University in 1934. Clair Hill worked with the Standard Oil Company in San Francisco and the California Bridge Department, now Caltrans, before returning to Redding in 1938 to found his engineering firm, Clair A. Hill & Associates. He specialized in water resources, surveying, mapping, and structural engineering, before entering military service in 1941, during World War II. He served 5 years in the Aleutian islands. After the war, in 1946, he reorganized his firm, which grew steadily in responsibility and reputation in the post-war boom. Working from offices in California and Alaska, Mr. Hill's firm served clients such as the U.S. Air Force, the Sacramento Utility District, and Pacific Gas & Electric Company. Clair Hill had an independent spirit, and his reputation was embodied in his motto, you will never succeed if you don't try. This dedication and independence spurred Mr. Hill to obtain a pilot's license and purchase his own airplane, which he used to service projects throughout California and the Pacific Northwest. Frequently called ``California's Mr. Water,'' Clair Hill was well known as a major contributor to California's water supply planning and management, having served for 32 years in the California Water Commission, 18 of those as chairman. While on the commission, he signed California's original State water plan, which outlined projects that today store water in the State's northern section for use by communities and industries throughout the State of California. In 1988 I was proud to assist in renaming Whiskeytown Dam, near Redding, as the Clair A. Hill Whiskeytown Dam. Mr. Hill's assistance and advocacy led to the development of the dam and reservoir to benefit the Redding area as part of the government's Central Valley water project. Although Clair Hill retired as CH2M Hill's California regional manager in 1974, he remained active as a consultant and adviser to the firm's water resources practice until just recently. Mr. Hill was the only honorary life member of the California Water Commission. Last year he was one of eight civil engineers nationwide to receive an honorary lifetime membership in the American Society of Civil Engineers. Clair Hill was also the first recipient of the Association of California Water Agency's Lifetime Achievement Award, and the National Academy of Engineering elected him to membership in 1992. As I mentioned before, it was truly a privilege to count Clair Hill among my good friends. He will be missed by many, and he will never be forgotten. Clair Hill, our Nation thanks you.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, as Mother's Day approaches, we should all remember that when a couple stands at the altar and says, ``I do,'' they are not agreeing to higher taxes. Yet, under our current Tax Code, that is precisely what is happening to millions of married couples each and every year. According to a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office, an estimated 42 percent of all married couples, some 21 million couples nationwide, incurred a Federal marriage penalty tax in 1996. The average marriage penalty that year approached an astounding $1,400. Addressing this inequity in our tax law must be one of the top priorities of this Congress as we work to provide the American people further tax relief in 1998. This Mother's Day, I would urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give the gift of tax fairness by supporting our efforts to eliminate the marriage penalty tax.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3546, the National Dialogue on Social Security Act. According to the trustees of the Social Security Trust Fund, the system is going broke. By the year 2013, the Trust Fund will be paying out more in benefits than it takes in through payroll taxes. By the year 2032, the Social Security Trust Fund will be completely bankrupt. Saving Social Security must be our Nation's most important priority, and we must all work together to move this process forward. Social Security is much too vital a program to have just one party or one branch of a government push for reform. Saving Social Security should not be a Republican versus Democrat issue; it should not be a conservative versus liberal issue, and it should not be a Congress versus the President issue. It should be an issue where we all stand together, placing the interests of our Nation first. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today puts us on that road to reform. The proposal has two parts. First, it seeks to engage the public on the future of Social Security. Earlier this month I held town hall meetings in each of the 10 counties that make up my congressional district in northern California. At these forums, literally hundreds of citizens of all ages shared with me their ideas and suggestions about how to improve the health of the Social Security system. This legislation will make sure that the voices of the American people continue to be heard throughout the reform process. Second, this proposal establishes a bipartisan intergenerational panel to design a single package of long-range reforms. I believe that this panel represents our Nation's best hope for securing the broad bipartisan, intergenerational support we must have to tackle this monumental task. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this very important legislation.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to listen to the science, listen to the concerns voiced by former Forest Service chief, Jack Ward Thomas. Vote against the extreme Boehlert amendment and vote yes on the Forest Recovery and Protection Act. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a special invitation to my colleagues. We in my district in northern California for each of the last 8 years have had what we call a woods tour to which we invite Members of Congress and others to come into our woods and see firsthand what we have in northern California to visit, some of the nine national forests that are in our beautiful area of the Sierra Nevada mountains and cascades and, too, as Paul Harvey would say, show you the rest of the story. Well, let me just share with my colleagues just a little bit of the rest of the story, and at this time I want to invite you to come with us on this year's tour which will be June 12, 13 and 14, to come and visit our forests. Let me show my colleagues some of what my colleagues would see there. Again, look at these forests here. We know about the heavy rains we are receiving this year and last year, but guess what? Over the last 12 years, 6 of those 12 years have been drought years; 5 of those 6 years have been continuous drought years, and what we see in our northern forests in northern California are many areas just as my colleagues see here of dead and dying trees. We have areas of our forests that are 60 and 70 percent dead and dying, and unless we have a road that can get us into these areas so as to be able to remove these trees, these trees, it is not a question of will they burn in an area where we have natural lightning strikes, it is only when they will burn; and when they do burn, not only are these gray areas completely burned, but they completely destroy all of the healthy areas. Again, I urge my colleagues' strong opposition to the extreme Boehlert amendment.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I support the Smith amendment before us and oppose the extreme amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). The legislation of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) is a critical step forward as we seek to restore the health of our national forests. I am disappointed that there are some of my colleagues that would be willing to sacrifice the health of our national forest system to advance an extreme environmentalist agenda which could lead to no fuel reduction and no more road building on Federal lands. Our forests need the option of building roads as an integral tool in allowing access to restoring forest health. According to forest fire- fighters in my district in northern California, in order to survive wildfires are very often those areas that have been treated for fuel reductions. This means that the dense underbrush and the intermediate levels of trees are thinned, not clear-cut. They are not harvested using traditional commercial harvest methods, but carefully thinned so that fire will not destroy the entire forest. These threatened areas are also relatively safe havens for our fire-fighters as they battle a raging blaze as an untreated area of the forest. For the safety of our brave fire-fighter crews, as well as the health of our forests, we need the legislation offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith), and we need it without the extreme Boehlert amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer now to two photographs next to me. These photographs graphically illustrate some of the problems that we must address before our forests are tragically destroyed by catastrophic fire. These gray areas represent both an unhealthy forest condition and an extraordinary fire hazard. Areas like this do not simply burn, they explode into devastating, highly intense fires, such as we see on the far left. These fires are absolutely devastating to the landscape. These areas must be treated. In 1994, our worst fire season on record, former chief of the Forest Service, Jack Ward Thomas, stated, quote, ``We cannot, in my opinion, simply step back and wait for nature to take its course. I do not believe that what has happened this fire season is acceptable as a solution to the problem. These fires of this scale and intensity are too hot, destructive, dangerous and too ecologically, economically, aesthetically and socially damaging to be tolerable,'' end of quote. Historically, Western forests were filled with stands of large trees, and the forest floors were less dense and were periodically thinned out by small fires that effectively removed dense underbrush while sparing the large trees. The Smith amendment is a science-based, environmentally sound mechanism to begin the long process of restoring our forests to a more natural state. This legislation prioritizes areas at the greatest risk of destruction, while complying with all, and I emphasize, complying with all, current environmental laws and forest plans. It establishes an independent scientific panel to ensure that all activities are applied in a way that improves forest health, using the best available and most current science. It establishes agency accountability for results on the ground and ensures fiscal responsibility by mandating annual reports to Congress. It also creates independent audits of agency performance. Most importantly, this legislation creates incentives for the Forest Service to make timely, efficient management decisions before our forests are destroyed by catastrophic fire. While some will argue that we should simply allow these forests to heal themselves over time, that approach does not adequately consider the tinderbox conditions of many areas of our national forests. We cannot simply pretend as though many decades of well-intentioned, but environmentally unwise fire suppression activities have not impacted our forests. We cannot just walk away from this problem. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to listen to the science, listen to the concerns.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in strong support of the Forest Recovery and Protection Act. I have the great privilege to represent a district in northern California that includes all of or parts of nine national forests. Historically, these forests were filled with stands of large trees. The forest floors were less dense and were often naturally thinned out by fires that would clean out dense underbrush and would leave the big trees to grow even larger. However, because of decades of aggressive fire suppression and modern hands-off management practices, these forests have grown out of hand, creating an almost overwhelming threat of fire. According to Forest Service estimates, approximately 40 million acres of the agency's lands are at a high risk for catastrophic fire. The cause of this fire threat is an unnatural accumulation of vegetation and small trees on western forest floors. The U.S. Forest Service estimates that the forests are 82 percent denser than in 1928. Dense undergrowth combined with increasingly taller layers of intermediate trees has turned western forests into deadly fire time bombs. Under these adverse conditions, fire quickly climbs up dense tree growth like a ladder until it tops out at the uppermost or crown level of the forest and races out of control as a catastrophic fire. Because of its high speed and intense heat, a crown fire has the capability of leaving an almost sterile environment in its wake with almost no vegetation, wildlife or habitat left behind. We must then ask ourselves, what habitat do we have left if everything in the forest burns? Mr. Chairman, the legislation of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) takes a much needed first step in the right direction toward prioritizing efforts to restore forest health. This legislation prioritizes areas at greatest risk of destruction while working in compliance with all environmental laws and forest plans. It establishes an independent scientific panel to ensure that all activities are applied in a way that improves forest health using the best available science, not politics. It establishes agency accountability for on-the- ground results, and ensures fiscal responsibility by requiring annual reports to Congress, and creates independent audits of agency performance. But most importantly, this legislation creates incentives for the Forest Service to make timely, efficient management decisions before our forests burn up. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Forest Recovery and Protection Act.