Wally Herger

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, today I wish to speak on behalf of my legislation, H.R. 478, the Flood Prevention and Family Protection Act of 1997. This legislation addresses a critical need that can be found in virtually every district in the United States. Not one area of this country does not possess some structure created for the sole purpose of flood control. Levees and other flood control structures work well to preserve human life and animal habitat when they are properly designed, constructed, maintained, and repaired. If left unrepaired or improperly maintained, these structures have the potential of failing during flood events and imperiling human life and the environment. This year alone, floods have devastated areas across the United States. Rising waters have taken lives and destroyed property in California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, North Dakota, Minnesota, and the entire Ohio River Valley. Controlling these floods is a national responsibility that requires a national solution. It amends the Endangered Species Act to allow flood experts to repair and maintain existing man-made flood control structures. The ESA was never intended to compromise human life, yet that is exactly what happens each time a levee or other needed flood control project is postponed or delayed due to extensive and costly regulations mandated by the ESA. Since 1986, after devastating floods weakened levees along the Feather River in my northern California district, flood control officials near the community of Arboga, CA, attempted to repair and reconstruct their failing levee system. In 1990, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report determined repairs should occur on the Arboga levee as expeditiously as possible, stating, ``Loss of life is expected under existing conditions, without remedial repairs, for major flood events.'' Despite this acknowledgment, more than 6 years of mitigation passed before permission was finally granted to begin repairs in the summer of 1997. Unfortunately, it was too late for the residents of Arboga. Levee officials were required to spend 6 years, and on January 2, at 12:20 a.m., the levee broke in the very location predicted 7 years earlier. We have a photo of that. As you can see by this photo, a levee failure is a traumatic event. Homes are lost, property is destroyed, and critical habitat is irreparably damaged. More importantly, human lives are put in jeopardy and often lost. The levee break at Arboga took the lives of three people. The first was 75-year-old Claire Royal, a retired elementary school teacher who had taught school for 20 years at Far West Elementary School and Beal Air Force Base. The second was 55-year-old grandmother Marian Anderson. Marian was also the wife of levee manager Gene Anderson, who, ironically, was out inspecting other portions of the levee when his wife was drowned. The third person that drowned that night was World War II veteran Bill Nakagawa. Bill had served in World War II with the famed and distinguished Japanese-American 442d Combat Team of the U.S. Army in the European Theater. He was found in his home one-quarter mile away from the broken Arboga levee. Thirty-two thousand other people were driven from their homes, 25,000 square miles of property and critical habitat were flooded, and more than 600 head of livestock, cows and horses, were drowned. If H.R. 478 had been in place, this tragedy could have been avoided. Repairs would have been allowed to begin back in 1990 when the critical nature of the levee's condition was first noticed. Instead of proceeding directly with construction, however, officials were required to spend 6 years and more than $10 million on studies and delaying mitigation that was eventually washed away in the January 2 floods. This example occurred in my district in northern California, but the same thing could happen virtually in every other district across the United States. All it takes is a flood control structure and a listed species. Necessary and require repairs and maintenance will be delayed. I urge Members' support of this legislation.

Mr. HERGER. I am aware of a number in my district that are delayed, and specifically the one that I have related to not only was delayed but it was delayed from 1990 until the summer, which has not come yet, of 1997, and prior to that time after 6 years the levee broke.

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

Mr. HERGER. Let me reclaim my time. Could the gentleman from New York be specific on when it expires in his legislation?

Mr. HERGER. The fact is, and I will reclaim my time, the fact is that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] stated in a question I asked him that his legislation sunsets on December 31, 1988. That is 1\1/2\-- I have the time--this is very serious. We have lost three of my constituents in this levee break because of an Endangered Species Act that for 6 years kept mitigating for an elderberry plant and put a plant--Mr. Chairman, I have the time--that mitigated for 6 years, spent $9 million on a repair that would have only cost $3 million that finally, after jumping through 6 years of hoops, this repair was due to be done this summer. Guess what? It was about 6 months, too late for the lives of three Americans and constituents of mine.

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

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

Mr. HERGER. OK; that is what I thought. I reclaim my time. It ends on the end of calendar year 1998. That is 1\1/2\ years from the day. That does nothing to help future floods. And I might mention this study that was done was asked for in 1986 after another flood there, which I am sure the gentleman from New York may have fought us doing something about then. We did a study that determined the levee that broke where Mrs. Anderson was drowned, the Corps of Engineers in 1990 said that there will be a loss of life unless this levee is repaired. For 6 years the Corps of Engineers jumped through hoops trying to mitigate for an elderberry plant, and, no I will not--tried to mitigate for this. This is serious. We had three people drown in our district because of those who have taken over the environmental movement, and it will not even allow for simple commonsense legislation that puts people, puts people ahead of endangered species. All we are talking about is repairing levees.

Mr. HERGER. That is correct, because it does.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Disaster Relief Tax Act of 1997, a bill which will provide important relief to taxpayers affected by a Presidentially declared disaster. Earlier this year, California experienced the worst flooding in State history. In the Sacramento Valley, levee failures on the Feather River, the Bear River, and the Sutter Bypass caused extensive flooding of over 80,000 acres in residential and agricultural areas. Nine Californians tragically lost their lives in these floods, and some 120,000 others were displaced from their homes. In total, the floods caused more than $1.6 billion in damage. A full 48 of the State's 56 counties were declared Federal disaster areas, including each of the 10 northern California counties that I represent. Today, the newspapers are filled with more heart-breaking stories of incredible flooding--this time in North Dakota. We are once again reminded how easily lives and communities can be uprooted by the force of nature. Unfortunately, for Americans who fall victim to such disasters, the problems they face don't necessarily subside with the waters. Inflexible tax law and undue administrative burdens often cause individuals added grief when dealing with the Internal Revenue Service. In the wake of these recent disasters, it is altogether appropriate that the Federal Government do what it can to help provide relief to these taxpayers. The Internal Revenue Service, through regulations and other guidance, routinely extends many tax-related deadlines for disaster victims. However, many other deadlines are firmly set by law and the IRS is not permitted to extend them through administrative regulations. My bill will authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to extend these tax deadlines for a period of up to 90 days. Taxpayer actions covered by this legislation include the filing of tax returns, the payment of taxes, and the filing of petitions with the Tax Court. Additionally, my bill would allow taxpayers to retain eligibility for any credits or refunds during the Secretary's prescribed extension period. All rights associated with this eligibility would also be extended, permitting taxpayers to file appropriate claims for these credits and refunds and to bring suit upon these claims. Mr. Speaker, this problem of inflexible tax laws was highlighted by a recent IRS news release, dated March 12, 1997. In it, the agency announced that it had extended certain deadlines related to pension plans for taxpayers affected by federally declared disasters. However, it also listed a series of deadlines that the agency could not administratively extend because they are firmly set by law. My bill would grant the IRS the appropriate authority to extend any deadlines faced by taxpayers victimized by such disasters. Mr. Speaker, this legislation also simplifies the process by which taxpayers establish their disaster losses for tax purposes. Often, as a result of a Presidentially declared disaster, individuals seek Federal loans or Federal loan guarantees to help them rebuild their homes or businesses. To obtain these loans or loan guarantees, taxpayers must have their property damage appraised by the Federal Government. Incredibly, however, these taxpayers may have to obtain an additional appraisal to establish the amount of their losses for tax purposes. I believe that this duplication is an unnecessary burden to impose on taxpayers who have already been victimized by disasters. Taxpayers should be allowed to use appraisals performed or authorized by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Small Business Administration, or other Government agencies to calculate their disaster losses. My bill explicitly authorizes the IRS to issue regulations or other guidance implementing this change, and I anticipate that this would be done promptly upon enactment. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Internal Revenue Service should have the appropriate authority to do what is fair. The Disaster Relief Tax Act of 1997 does just that. Americans who have already been victimized by floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, or other Presidentially declared disasters should not also be victimized by inflexible tax laws and undue administrative burdens. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important and much-needed legislation.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I have discovered something very upsetting in the information; upsetting, that is, to the media and the elite who want to run our lives. Mr. Speaker, it turns out that the American people do want tax relief. The latest USA Today CNN Gallup poll shows that 70 percent of Americans want a tax cut in any budget agreement this year. Seventy percent. Furthermore, a majority, 52 percent, say tax cuts and deficit reduction can be accomplished at the same time. Maybe the White House will find a way to spin these facts to mean the opposite of what they say. Maybe they think the American people are just kidding. Maybe they think the American people did not actually mean to elect a Republican Congress that ran on a promise of tax cuts and tax reforms. On the other hand, maybe they should just accept the truth: The American people support lower taxes, smaller government, and less intrusion from Washington.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, today Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Crane, Ms. Dunn, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Hulshof, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. English, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Packard, Mr. Dreier, Mr. King, and Mr. McCollum join me in introducing legislation that eliminates a provision of tax law which discriminates against U.S. exporters of defense products. The Defense Jobs and Trade Promotion Act of 1977 will help defense contractors improve their competitiveness, will protect our defense industrial base, and will help insure that American defense workers--who have already had to adjust to sharply declining defense budgets--do not see their jobs lost to overseas competitors because of a harmful quirk in our own tax law. The Internal Revenue Code allows U.S. companies to establish Foreign Sales Corporations [FSC's], under which they can exempt from U.S. taxation a portion of their earnings from foreign sales. This provision is designed to help U.S. firms compete against companies in other countries which rely more on value-added taxes [VAT's] than on corporate income taxes. When products are exported from such countries, the VAT is rebated, effectively lowering their prices. U.S. companies, in contrast, must charge relatively higher prices in order to obtain a reasonable net profit after taxes have been paid. By permitting a share of the profits derived from exports to be excluded from corporate income taxes, the FSC in effect allows companies to charge lower prices and partially compensates for the differences between the U.S. tax system and that of most of our competitors. In 1976, Mr. Speaker, the tax law was amended to reduce the tax benefits for defense products to 50 percent, while retaining the full benefits for all other products. The rationale for this discriminatory treatment--that U.S. defense exporters faced little competition--no longer exists. Whatever the veracity of that premise 20 years ago, today's military exports are subject to fierce international competition in every area. Twenty years ago, roughly one-half of all the nations purchasing defense products benefited from U.S. military assistance. Today, U.S. military assistance has been sharply curtailed and is essentially limited to two countries. Moreover, with the sharp decline in the defense budget over the past decade, exports of defense products have become even more critical to maintaining a viable U.S. defense industrial base. The aerospace industry alone provides over 800,000 jobs for U.S. workers. Roughly one-third of these jobs are tied directly to export sales. In 1996, for example, total industry sales were $112 billion, $37 billion of which was for exports. Of the three fighter aircraft under production in this country, two are dependent on foreign customers. No valid economic or policy reason exists for continuing a tax policy that discriminates against a particular class of manufactured products. Furthermore, repealing this section will not impact the foreign policy of the United States. Military sales will continue to be subject to the license requirements of the Arms Export Control Act. Mr. Speaker, improvement of the U.S. trade imbalance is fundamental to the health of our economy. The benefits provided by the FSC provisions contribute significantly to the ability of U.S. exporters to compete effectively in foreign markets. The FSC limitation on the exemption for defense exports hampers the ability of U.S. companies, many of whom already have access to large foreign markets, to compete effectively abroad with many of their products. Section 923(a)(5) should be repealed immediately to remove this impediment to international competitiveness and to improve the health of our defense industry. Let me briefly describe the historical context in which the FSC provisions were enacted, as it helps to explain why this section of the law should now be repealed. The genesis of the FSC was the Domestic International Sales Corporation or DISC. Congress had enacted the DISC provisions in 1971 to stimulate exports and grant a Federal income tax deferral opportunity to U.S. firms engaged in exporting through domestic corporations. A DISC was not subject to Federal income tax on its earnings. Rather, the DISC's parent company was taxed each year on part of the DISC's earnings as if the parent company had received a dividend from the DISC. The DISC's remaining earnings were not taxed until actually distributed to the parent company. Until 1976, up to 50 percent of the DISC's annual export profits could be deferred in this manner, including profits from the sale of military products. From the outset, Mr. Speaker, the DISC program was the subject of a dispute between the United States and other signatories of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT]. Some countries contended that the DISC provisions essentially created an illegal export subsidy that violated the GATT. Partly in response to these criticisms, Congress reduced DISC benefits in the Tax Reform Act of 1976. First, Congress changed the tax rules in such a way that less than 25 percent, rather than 50 percent, of a corporation's earnings from exports could be deferred from U.S. taxation. Second, DISC benefits for the sale of military products were cut back. The House originally proposed to terminate all DISC benefits for military sales, except if the products were to be used solely for nonmilitary purposes. The Senate recommended that all DISC benefits be terminated for military sales unless it was determined that the property was competitive with foreign-manufactured property. The compromise reached was that the DISC benefits would be terminated for 50 percent of military sales--whether or not competitive--made after October 2, 1975. For this purpose, military property was defined to include any article that is inherently military in character without regard to its intended use, such as communications satellites and their components, launch vehicles, and many aircraft and their components. DISC remained a serious irritant in U.S. trade relations with other countries, particularly the European Economic Community, and in October 1982, the United States informed the GATT Council that it would propose to Congress legislation addressing the concerns of its trading partners over DISC. In March 1983, the administration announced the general elements of an alternative to the DISC program. Legislation on the proposed alternative was introduced on August 4, 1983, to replace DISC's with Foreign Sales Corporations [FSCs]. The FSC provisions were signed into law on July 18, 1984, as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. The FSC provisions are similar to the DISC provisions in that they were designed to encourage exports by allowing exporters to exempt a percentage of export income from taxation. FSC benefits are provided for property manufactured or produced in the United States. The exemption on the sale of military goods, again, is half the amount otherwise allowed for other types of property. The legislative history shows that this special rule for military property was simply a carryover from the DISC provisions which were based on the premise that military products were not sold in a competitive environment. Mr. Speaker, with the sharp decline in our defense budget over the past decade, exports of defense products have become even more critical to maintain or increase employment in the United States and to preserve the skills and facilities necessary to maintain a viable U.S. defense industrial base. But today, our defense companies face intense competition from companies in Europe and around the world. Indeed, global competition is even further intensified because Russia and other former Communist countries are now considered acceptable suppliers by countries that would not have purchased from them during the cold war. This increased global competition has contributed heavily to declining American sales abroad. Indeed, over the 10-year period between 1984 and 1994, U.S. defense exports declined an astounding 37 percent when measured in constant dollars. The U.S. public and U.S. industry have made a tremendous investment in our defense industrial base. Decisions on whether or not to allow a defense export should continue to be made on foreign policy grounds. However, once a decision has been made that an export is consistent with those interests, surely our Government should encourage such sales to go to U.S. companies and workers, not our competitors. Discriminating against these sales in the Tax Code puts our defense industry at great disadvantage and makes no sense in today's environment. The repeal of section 923(a)(5) would put defense companies on a more level playing field with other competitors with respect not only to military products but also to commercial products. This is true because companies that have developed skills and expertise producing goods for military use are most likely to apply those in commercial markets by developing new uses for military products or close derivatives from those products. Since the FSC provisions rely on a definition of military products that focuses on the source of the product's development and its potential use rather than on its actual intended use, almost all products currently produced by the aerospace industry are subject to the 50-percent FSC limitation under current law. This is the case even if these products or close derivatives are exported for strictly commercial purposes. Mr. Speaker, let me close by stressing that no valid economic or policy reason exists for continuing a tax policy that discriminates against one class of manufactured products. To the contrary, thousands of good U.S. jobs, the maintenance of a healthy defense industrial base, and the improvement of our balance of trade argue for abolishing this unfair policy. We must repeal this part of the Tax Code in order to provide fair and equal treatment to our defense industry and its workers, and to enable our defense companies to compete more successfully in the increasingly challenging international market. I would urge my colleagues to join me--and the bipartisan group of original cosponsors--in supporting the Defense Jobs and Trade Promotion Act of 1997.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to testify in support of my legislation, H.R. 63, which proposes to redesignate Clair Engle Lake in northern California to its better known, common name of ``Trinity Lake.'' I appear today on behalf of the Trinity County Board of Supervisors and the residents of Trinity County, who have requested I introduce this legislation. Local support for this legislation is overwhelming. One poll, conducted by a local newspaper, showed an almost unanimous vote in favor of changing the lake's name to Trinity Lake. It has also been unanimously endorsed by the Trinity Board of Supervisors, who passed a resolution calling for this action in 1995. Since the reservoir was created by the construction of the Trinity Dam, locals have referred to it as ``Trinity Lake.'' It earned this name because of its location in Trinity County and its proximity to the Trinity Alps. Reference to the name ``Trinity Lake'' has been so attractive that it has been adopted by virtually every segment of the general public as well as local, State, and Federal authorities. It has been used extensively by the local tourist industry and public officials to promote the recreational aspects of the lake, since the name ``Trinity Lake'' creates stronger promotional imagery than does the name ``Clair Engle Lake.'' In fact, the Trinity Lake designation has become so pervasive that about the only people who don't refer to the lake as ``Trinity Lake'' are those nonresidents and tourists who have never been to the lake itself. Understandably, this has created a great deal of confusion for visitors to the lake and, consequently, has had a negative economic impact on the lake communities. by changing the name, my legislation will eliminate this confusion and enhance the benefits that the lake brings to Trinity County. Mr. Speaker, in view of the overwhelming sentiment in favor of this legislation, and the worthwhile objectives of eliminating confusion and enhancing economic benefits for Trinity County, I respectfully request the support and endorsement of this House of Representatives in answering the urgent plea of Trinity County residents by giving them back their lake through redesignation of Clair Engle Lake to its more popular name, ``Trinity Lake.''

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, today Mr. Clement, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Bunning, Ms. Dunn, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Hayworth, and Mr. Burton join me in introducing legislation--the Criminal Welfare Prevention Act, Part II-- which will prevent the needless waste of taxpayer dollars. Last year, the 104th Congress took an important step forward in this regard by enacting legislation that denies Federal SSI benefits to inmates of State and local correctional facilities. Although prisoners were not entitled to these benefits under existing Federal law, there was no way to match prisoners in local institutions with benefit checks mailed by the Federal Government. The Criminal Welfare Prevention Act-- signed into law as part of last year's welfare reform package--creates a voluntary bridge between local sheriffs and the Federal Government, helping sheriffs identify ineligible individuals. This commonsense reform will save taxpayers millions of dollars--without imposing unfunded mandates or establishing new government bureaucracies. However, there is still more work to do. Originally, the Criminal Welfare Prevention Act had aimed to deny local prisoners Social Security [OASDI] benefits as well, but these provisions were dropped from the final conference report to comply with Senate rules against making changes to OASDI in a reconciliation bill. Consequently, many local prisoners are still receiving OASDI benefits for which they are currently ineligible under Federal law. To address this problem, we are introducing the Criminal Welfare Prevention Act, Part II. This bill will create monetary incentives for State and local law enforcement authorities to enter into voluntary data-sharing contracts with the Social Security Administration. This exchange of information will help get prisoners off our benefit rolls and will save taxpayers an estimated $35 million by the year 2002. Under our proposal, if a participating local authority reports to the SSA that an incarcerated convict has received an OASDI check within the previous 30 days, that local authority will receive a cash payment of $400. If the discovery is made within 90 days, the local authority will receive $200. Again, participation in these contracts is purely voluntary--our bill will create an incentive structure, not an unfunded Federal mandate. In this time of severe budgetary constraints, we strongly believe that Congress needs to cut off this tremendously wasteful flow of scarce resources. Last Congress, the original Criminal Welfare Prevention Act attracted nearly 200 cosponsors, and its SSI-related portions are now law. The remaining OASDI provisions passed the House late last year as part of a Social Security Technical Corrections bill, but Congress adjourned before Senate action could be taken. Now is the time to finish the job. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this much- needed bipartisan reform.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, this Republican-led 104th Congress has been one of the most productive ever. Not only has two-thirds of the contract been signed into law, we have also delivered health insurance reform, lobbying reform, food safety legislation, the Safe Drinking Water Act, a small business tax cut, and the list goes on and on. In fact, President Clinton's acceptance speech at the Democrat National Convention took credit for many of these Republican-initiated issues, including the contract issues--welfare reform, line-item veto, long-term care insurance deduction, congressional accountability, the adoption tax credit, and the Congressional Accountability Act. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is this--the Republican majority has delivered commonsense policies for a better America. We have changed the way Washington works by placing power back in the people's hands. And if imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, then Bill Clinton must be throwing Republicans a big fat kiss.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this legislation. This bill champions the rights of local governments; it champions the constitutional role of the United States in making federal land policy; and it champions the self-determination and absolute sovereignty of the United States within the world community of nations. Mr. Speaker, the past 25 year has seen an explosion of global treaties and programs about which U.S. citizens have had little or no say. Among the most troubling of these has been a 1971 United Nations agreement to establish so-called ``biosphere reserves'' around the world each surrounded by enormous buffer zones encompassing both public and private property within which human activity is significantly restricted. Quietly, over the last 25 years, without the arrogant election-year fanfare that we recently saw in Utah, faceless federal bureaucrats have classified a total area larger than the entire state of Colorado as biosphere reserves. Local communities did not consent to these designations. Neither did State governments. Even Congress was not allowed to participate in the designation process. All that was required to create these biosphere reserves was the urging of an international environmental organization and the stroke of a pen from a Federal authority who was not accountable to a single U.S. citizen for his actions. Mr. Speaker, it is time to bring our communities, our States and the United States Congress back into the process of governing our public lands. The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act will do just that. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this important legislation.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has been the most significant Congress in a generation. We have changed Washington and we have ended the culture of spending. In less than 2 years, we have enacted congressional reform, the Telecommunications Act, the Freedom to Farm Act, health insurance reform, and genuine reform of welfare. And when the Medicare Board of Trustees said that Medicare was going bankrupt, Republicans in this Congress listened and we responded with a plan to save Medicare so that our parents and grandparents would be protected. But Bill Clinton vetoed that plan and liberal Democrats here in Congress have resorted to the rhetoric of fear and demagoguery. Mr. Speaker, this Republican Congress has a record of accomplishment it can be proud of. We have introduced the cool, clear water of common sense into a dry and parched land. And we will continue the fight for a smaller Government and a brighter future for America.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, last week President Clinton's Interior Secretary, Bruce Babbitt, endorsed a plan to tax anything having to do with the great outdoors. The plan he endorsed called for a 5-percent tax on everything from binoculars to canteens to sleeping bags to birdseed. Birdseed, Mr. Speaker? What is next? The air we breathe? It is true that Bill Clinton, the great conservative Republican that he is, has backed away from the plan, but is this just a glimpse of the future if Bill Clinton were to stay in power? Higher taxes, bigger government and more regulation. Mr. Speaker, they say it is hard for a leopard to change its spots. It is also hard for liberals to change their tax-and- spend tendencies, as Interior Secretary Babbitt has so eloquently proved. Mr. Speaker, I believe that if the Clinton administration wins reelection, tax and spend will be back again. Welcome to the future, Mr. and Mrs. America.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Chairman, over the last three decades the American taxpayer has spent $5 trillion on our welfare system. Working Americans may be asking themselves, what have we gained from all that spending? Do we have less poverty in the United States? No; are welfare recipients spending less time on welfare? No; after spending $5 trillion on welfare, have we solved the problems of poverty and dependency on Federal dollars? Is it extreme to think that maybe there is a better way of running our welfare system? Madam Chairwoman, the Republican welfare reform proposal will allow welfare to work better for all Americans. Our welfare reform makes welfare a way out--not a way of life. It promotes work over a continual cycle of welfare. It returns power and money to the States and encourages personal responsibility. Madam, Chairwoman, this reform proposal also denies welfare for noncitizens and includes a provision I developed with a sheriff in my district to deny imprisoned criminals welfare and create an incentive for local law enforcement officials to help stop this abuse. Currently, an estimated 5 to 10 percent of inmates in local and State jails are illegally receiving welfare checks. Without this welfare reform, the American taxpayer will allegedly give prisoners $270 million over the next 7 years in welfare payments. Madam Chairwoman, our current welfare system is inefficient, unfair, and damaging to those it is supposed to help. The American people deserve a better welfare program that is unaccepting to those abusing the system and compassionate to those in real need. I urge my colleagues to vote for this welfare reform.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, again, President Bill Clinton has dropped the ball on welfare reform. During his 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton promised to end welfare as we known it. But when given the opportunity, Bill Clinton broke his promise--he vetoed welfare reform, not once, but twice. Thirty days ago, Bill Clinton promised to take action on Wisconsin's welfare waiver request. Well, the 30 days are up, and again we see that Bill Clinton cannot be trusted to keep his word. Again, he has broken his promises and again he has done nothing about one of the most pressing problems in this country. Mr. Speaker, what is it going to take? Why can't Bill Clinton keep his promises? Millions of Americans are stuck in a cycle of welfare dependence and poverty, and all the White House can do is worry about its poll numbers and play partisan political games. Bill Clinton should keep his promise to reform welfare and finally begin showing leadership.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support to the Furse amendment. Mr. Chairman, let me remind my colleagues that currently over 21 billion board feet of dead and dying timber litter our national forests--enough to build 2 million homes. In some areas 70 to 80 percent of the forests are dead or dying. These deplorable conditions exploded in 1994, as wildfires destroyed 4 million acres of national forest throughout the country including over a half million acres in my own State of California. Common sense demanded enactment of the salvage law to stop this massive destruction of our forests. The salvage law was an emergency, short-term measure intended to jump-start efforts to restore long-term forest health by expediting the removal of dead and dying trees from our forests. It is the extreme environmentalists, led by the Sierra Club--the richest environmental litigation machine in the world--who are leading the charge to repeal this law and ultimately stop all timber harvests on Federal land--even the harvesting of dead trees. Mr. Chairman, it is not responsible forest management to let millions of acres of forest rot and die on the stump. I urge my colleagues to act responsibly, to reject the extremism that would rather see a forest burn to the ground than manage it wisely, and help preserve our forests as a healthy, natural legacy for generations to come. Vote ``no'' on the Furse amendment.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would like to engage my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, recently concluded scientific studies of forests within the Sierra Nevada mountains of California indicate that timber harvests, when accompanied by forest thinning, biomass removal and other natural fuels prescriptions, can reduce fire risk and aid overall forest health conditions. These same studies indicate that natural fuels prescriptions are essential to the success of larger fire management strategies, such as developing systems of defensible fuels profile zones. Coordinated efforts of this kind, particularly when mechanical and natural fuel treatments are utilized, can also provide economic benefits to forest dependent communities in the form of merchantable fiber for mills, fuel for biomass cogeneration plants, and other valuable wood products. Mr. Chairman, is it therefore the gentleman's expectation that funds allocated to H.R. 3662 for forest health and natural fuels treatment in region 5 of the Forest Service should be used, to the extent feasible, for those prescriptions which both achieve forest health objectives and provide useful wood products for forest dependent communities? And is it also the gentleman's expectation that these prescriptions be carried out in the most cost-effective manner possible and as part of larger developed management strategies like timber harvest and large scale fire management plans?

Mr. HERGER. I thank the gentleman. amendment offered by mr. parker

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Dicks amendment. Mr. Chairman, the listing of the marbled murrelet is the capstone of efforts by extreme environmentalists to lock up private property in northern California. This small bird, which environmentalists claim is on the verge of extinction, actually has a habitat range that stretches all the way from California through Canada and into Alaska, where literally hundreds of thousands of murrelets can be found. The thrust of the movement and this amendment is to move the battle to stop timber harvests from Federal to private property. Over 4 million acres of murrelet habitat already has been designated in Washington, Oregon, and northern California; 3.9 million of these acres are on Federal land. Less than 1 percent of the critical habitat, approximately 48,000 acres, is located on private land. Seventy percent of this private property is owned by one property owner. This one property owner will have 33,000 acres of land locked up by an uncompensated taking unless this Congress has the courage to stop it. Mr. Chairman, 3.9 million acres of critical habitat for a bird that thrives by the hundreds of thousands in Alaska through northern California. We do not need to confiscate 33,000 acres of private property to save the marbled murrelet. Unfortunately, the extreme environmentalists do not see it that way. Extremist juggernauts like the Sierra Club have already declared open war on Federal timber harvests. Now they are setting their sights on private timber interests. Their work will not be done until every square inch of forest in North America has been converted to a park. Mr. Chairman, every private property owner in the United States should pay close attention to this vote. Today, extremist policies are taking property from a northern Californian. Tomorrow, it might be a Georgian or a Floridian or even someone in New York or New Jersey who will lose their property rights for the sake of furthering an extreme environmental agenda. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, especially those who champion private property rights, to stand up for the millions of private property owners in our country, to oppose policies that systematically rob Americans of their rights of self-determination, and to reject the extreme environmentalist agenda by opposing the Dicks amendment. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Regula was allowed to speak out of order.) evening schedule