Wally Herger

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support this amendment to the Army's military construction budget. This amendment eliminates $14 million in taxpayer dollars to purchase 7 acres of private land for the purpose of building a national army museum. Mr. Chairman, let me be clear, we should always strongly support our military, and I will continue to do so. This amendment does not, in any way, move to belittle the brave Americans that served or trivialize the tremendous sacrifices that they have made for this country. Indeed, I support the building of the A museum dedicated to the soldiers of our Nation's Army--I simply believe it should be built on existing Federal lands. The issue here is not whether the museum should be built, but rather where it should be built and more importantly can the Federal Government afford the $14 million price tag. I believe the American taxpayer would agree that $2 million an acre is a bit too much. Not only does this land acquisition cost the taxpayer, it denies private ownership and decreases revenues by taking the property off the tax rolls. The Federal military already owns almost 650,000 acres of land when only 7 of which is needed for the museum. In fact, right here in the Washington area, we have Fort McNair, Fort Meyer, and the property surrounding the Pentagon that could be used to establish this museum. Mr. Chairman, I also understand that there may be a Federal department or two available in the near future. But my point is, I find it difficult to believe that the Army cannot find 7 acres somewhere in this country that would adequately accommodate the building of a museum. I do not see why we should spend additional taxpayer dollars to purchase more land when plenty of Federal property is already available. If this Nation is to ever reduce the size of Government, then this Congress has to control spending where we can. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does precisely that. It cuts unnecessary Federal spending and sends a clear message to all Federal agencies, that this Congress is committed to not making the Federal Government any larger than it already is. Why should we allocate scarce taxpayer dollars for more land instead of utilizing abundant existing lands. It simply does not make fiscal or common sense. I urge my colleagues to save taxpayer dollars and vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support this amendment to the Army's military construction budget.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, how ironic. What did a President who campaigned on reducing Government spending choose as his first veto? He chose to veto a bill that reduces Government spending. It's no wonder that people in America are confused about where the administration wants to take this country. This bill provides $9 billion in real deficit reduction. It takes a first step to balancing the budget--which will lower interest rates, stimulate job growth and provide a sound future for our children. But the President would rather play politics. Contrary to what the Democrats are claiming, this bill does not hurt education. Programs such as Head Start, Education for the Disadvantaged and Student Financial Assistance aren't even touched. Even where spending is slightly reduced, programs are still being funded at higher levels than last year. When are the Democrats and the President going to stop playing politics and come to the table with real alternatives? If they don't want to be part of the solution, then let them stop being part of the problem.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton has threatened to veto the disaster assistance package produced by the Congress. I urge the President to reconsider that threat. He should not sacrifice needed disaster assistance on the altar of domestic politics. If the President vetoes this bill, he stops aid to victims of the tragedy in Oklahoma. If the President vetoes this bill, he jeopardizes the peace process in the Middle East. If he vetoes this bill, the President stops funds from flowing to aid victims of the natural disasters in California. Mr. Speaker, if the President vetoes this bill, he allows $9 billion in unnecessary and wasteful spending to be spent. Apparently, the President has issued the veto threat because he wants to appear relevant to the legislative process. But vetoing this crucially important piece of legislation seems to me to be a destructive way to prove relevance.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. That is absolutely the case in our area. Again there is probably not any other industry that has as many small business type family organizations than in the timber business, that business which provides our Nation with our paper products, provides us with the wood products to be able to build our homes, to be able to have affordable homes, essential needs. Yet as the gentleman mentioned, these are primarily done by family small businesses.

Mr. HERGER. I thank again the gentleman for bringing this out. Again we are talking about a renewable resource. As I mentioned earlier in my talk, I have some eight national forests, all or parts of them in my district. Of that part, during the time when we were under historic levels and were harvesting, approximately 75 percent were off-limits to any type of harvesting at all. They were in preserves, they were in national parks, in wilderness areas. So we really had about 25 percent of the pie that could be harvested, and through our California laws could not be harvested any more rapidly than they were growing back. At this point, even that 25 percent has been locked up. Maybe there is about 5 percent or even less that we are able to harvest. Again, we are talking about a renewable resource. These steel studs that you are referring to or even in our grocery store, the plastic. Plastic is not renewable. Steel studs are not renewable. But yet our forest products are renewable. Again, it is a tragedy to our environment to see this happening, that not only are our forests rotting and burning but our communities are being deprived of their very livelihoods. Again, this is a tragedy, and I thank the gentleman for bringing this out.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and for all of his hard work. I believe he is the only certified forester in the House of Representatives. I thank him for his leadership in this area. Mr. Speaker, when the President threatened to veto the 1995 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescission Bill, H.R. 1158, he stated, among other things, that he ``really objected to the timber salvage provision of the bill.'' I was quite surprised to hear this, particularly in light of what the amendment stands for in terms of wildfire prevention, forest health, jobs, and the preservation of rural schools all over the country. What I would like to do for the next few minutes, Mr. Speaker, is outline just what the President means when he says he objects to the amendment. That is, where his priorities lie, and what that means to the rural communities in my district in northern California and in other regions throughout the country. Apparently the President is objecting to wildfire prevention and forest health. Mr. Speaker, last year nearly 4 million acres of forestland nationwide and some 375,000 acres in my district alone were consumed by wildfire. This was due primarily to the excessive buildup of natural fuels, that is, dead and dying trees in our forests. Mr. Speaker, of the 8 national forests in my northern California congressional district, I have areas where as much as 50 to 80 percent of the trees are dead and dying due to disease, insect infestation caused primarily because of 7 out of 9 years of severe drought. In fact, tree mortality in my district is so severe that the California State Board of Forestry has declared much of the area as a zone of infestation. When these dead and dying trees ignite, they burn with such intensity that virtually everything in the forest, live trees, riparian habitat, owl nesting sites and even the soil is consumed. This kind of wildfire brings the health of the forest to its lowest ebb. Nature is unable to repair itself for years, even if man does everything within his power to help. Wildfire also does not discriminate between animal and human habitat. Last year the city of Loyalton, for example, in my district was threatened to be burned to the ground 3 times by the same fire. Each time the town was spared by changing winds. Next year the families who live in Loyalton may not be so fortunate. Our salvage amendment offered the President the tools to protect our forests and forest communities from this kind of catastrophe, but apparently the President finds this proposition objectionable. Apparently the President would rather see our forests and the towns adjacent to them, the Loyaltons in States throughout the country, blow up in fire storms than remove the dead and dying trees that cause this kind of disaster. The President apparently also objects to putting unemployed people back to work. Mr. Speaker, since 1987, 51 mills have closed in northern California due to drastic decreases in Federal timber sales and the listing of the Northern Spotted Owl. Forty-two of these mills have closed since the beginning of 1990. Twenty-nine are in my district. These closures have literally devastated many small timber-dependent communities. Thousands of workers have been dislocated, causing unemployment to exceed 20 percent in some [[Page H5560]] areas. Welfare rolls have ballooned and domestic violence has risen sharply. It has simply been a social travesty. When the President held his Western Forest Health Summit in 1992, he promised to help these people. What has he done since then? Since he made his highly touted promises to the people of northern California, Forest Service timber sales in the region have fallen to approximately half of their 1992 levels and to approximately one-third of their historic levels. Year 1995 looks even more bleak for the timber communities. Of the 20 timber purchasers which currently have outstanding timber contracts in the Klamath and Sierra Provinces of northern California, only 7 of these 20 will have outstanding contracts at the end of 1995. The bottom line is, the industry is being bled dry. How ironic it is to consider that at the same time we have a desperate need to remove the dead and dying timber from our forests, we also have a work force in desperate need of jobs. Mr. Speaker, common sense says that we have the wherewithal to kill two birds with one stone, to save our forests and put a number of people back to work. But again, Mr. Speaker, the President apparently finds this objectionable. The fact is that he is turning his back on the promises he made in 1992 and to the people to whom he made them. Finally, the President apparently also objects to infusing money for schools and roads into depressed rural communities which have not the money for either. Mr. Speaker, 25 percent of the receipts of all Federal timber sales are returned directly to counties to fund schools and road construction. Any county school superintendent in northern California would tell you of the devastating impact reduced timber sales have had on the schools in his or her district. Plumas County, for example, has had its annual school budget cut by as much as $5.3 million from its 1992 levels. Siskiyou County has lost over $1.7 million annually since 1992. These drastic cuts to school budgets which are very small to begin with, Mr. Speaker, have forced school boards to eliminate some of the most basic scholastic programs which most school districts take for granted. Our salvage amendment would give county school districts and road funds an infusion of a projected $380 million. This money would also help restore basic programs in rural schools. But, again, Mr. Speaker, the President apparently finds this proposition objectionable. Apparently his ``people first'' philosophy does not include children in poor rural communities. So what does the President not object to? If he objects to fire prevention, job creation, and the preservation of rural schools, what does he not object to? He apparently does not object to continuing what he began the day he took office, an all-out war on the West spurred on by environmental extremists and special interest groups, a preservationist war that apparently he will continue waging until our forests are locked up completely and the enemy, the people who have lived and managed them for generations, have been vanquished. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] for his leadership in having this special order and bringing this to the attention of not only the Members of the Congress but to the American people.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kasich budget. Mr. Chairman, we hear over and over again that the Republican Kasich budget cuts spending to pay for tax cuts for the rich and the privileged, even though the other side of the aisle knows that we are increasing spending by $1.2 trillion under our budget, and both Medicare and education. Mr. Chairman, this class warfare argument pits Americans against Americans. In 1993, even though the President campaigned on a middle- class tax cut, he gave us the largest tax increase in history, $240 billion. All we are trying to do in our Kasich budget is give Americans back some of the hard-earned dollars that the Clinton tax increase took away 2 years ago. Let us look at the facts. In our Contract With America, we provide much needed tax relief to 42 million middle class Americans. Mr. Chairman, 75 percent of tax cuts go to families. Seventy-four percent of these families eligible for the $500 per child tax credit earn less than $75,000 a year. Mr. Chairman, the second biggest falsehood levied by the other side is that the wealthy do not pay enough in taxes. Make no mistake, the better off in this country do carry a heavy share of the tax burden. I ask Members to judge for themselves. According to the latest data available, the top 1 percent of income earners paid 27.4 percent of all Federal individual income taxes. The top 10 percent of wage earners paid 57.5 percent of total taxes, and the top 50 percent paid almost 95 percent, the top 50 percent paid almost 95 percent of total income tax. Mr. Chairman, the question can be asked ``Whose money is this? Are these Washington dollars?'' No, this money belongs to the American families, the small business owners, and the family farmers that make up this great Nation of ours. All we are trying to do in the Republican Kasich budget is give back to the American people a portion of what the Clinton tax increase took away 2 years ago. Vote ``yes'' on the Kasich budget.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Americans who are concerned about the proposed veto threat by their President. Mr. Speaker, last summer fire storms roared through Northern California, threatening to destroy entire communities. Last spring this same area was ravaged by devastating floods which left thousands homeless. During these calamities families and communities cried out to the President for help. Today we will give the President the means to help these people, but he is turning his back on them. We offer relief to thousands of flood victims, but the President is turning his back. We offer a timber salvage plan to protect forest communities from incinerating fires, but the President is again turning his back. Mr. Speaker, the President is turning his back, but we are not. Today we will show these Americans who has the real compassion. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the conference report.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, after watching the Clinton Democrats for the past few weeks, I have finally figured out what their strategy is. Since they have no solid ideas of their own, they have started on a fear campaign filled with illegitimate scare tactics designed to try derail any legislation Republicans offer. Have they no shame. First it was the children. The Clinton Democrats said school lunch programs were being cut, when in fact funding was increasing. Now they are saying children will suffer if we try to balance the budget. I say what kind of future will our children have if we do not balance the budget. Have they no shame! Next it is the college students. Clinton Democrats are scaring college students by playing fast and loose with the facts about school loans, when in reality a balanced budget will bring down interest rates by at least 2 percent, ultimately saving students money. Have they no shame. And finally, the Clinton Democrats, in their eagerness to score political points, are using their distorted fear tactics to scare senior citizens. Republicans are working to save Medicare--Republicans repealed Clinton's tax increase on seniors. Republicans are protecting Social Security. Have the Clinton Democrats no shame.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, as a small business owner and a father of nine children, I am concerned about the future of this Nation. For too long, Washington has mortgaged the dreams of our future generations. For example, a child born today already owes $187,000 in interest payments on the $4.8 trillion national debt. However, Mr. Chairman, today is the dawn of a new day in Washington. This is truly a historic occasion. For the first time in 26 years, this Congress is on the verge of enacting a plan to balance the Federal budget. Mr. Chairman, this budget is about beginning to pay off our debts and restoring the American dream. It is about renewing hope for the next generation and about restoring prosperity to our communities and the economy. Mr. Chairman, last fall we made a promise to the American people to bring the budget to balance. In this budget, we keep that promise. Mr. Chairman, unlike my Democrat colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this is not an arcane meat ax budget. Last November, the American people asked us to streamline government and make it more efficient, and that is exactly what we are doing. Where we can, we send programs back to the States and local governments. We also attempt to eliminate redundant programs. Under this budget, spending continues to grow, only it will grow at a slower rate. For example, over the next 7 years this budget pledges to spend an additional $1.2 trillion. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this budget.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, currently the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency regulations for implementing section 404(f) exemptions for agricultural and related activities require that an activity ``must be part of an `established' or `ongoing' farming, silviculture or ranching operation''. Mr. Chairman, what is the gentleman's intent in amending section 404(f) with respect to these exemptions? Under the amended section 404(f), will it be permissible to change from one exempted agriculturally related activity to another without triggering the permit requirements?

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. amendment offered by mr. wyden

Mr. HERGER

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

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment to the gentleman from New York, who is the author of the amendment. I have 10 counties in my rural 36,000 square mile district, with unemployment as high as 20 percent in some of them.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The regulations and policies which have been promulgated under section 404 of the Clean Water Act have evolved into an impenetrable maze of conflicting and confusing rules, restrictions, and enforcement measures that are wreaking havoc throughout the country, and particularly in my northern California district. These sprawling and invasive regulations come not from one but three different government agencies, each pushing a different agenda, and each operating according to its own prescribed set of rules. Mr. Chairman, this morass of regulations has moved far beyond the simple protection of our Nation's wetlands. What once were reasonable and necessary laws and regulations have been taken to ridiculous extremes. The promotion of wise stewardship has changed into an all-out effort to further preservationists' agendas. Regulations based on cooperation between policymakers and property owners has been replaced with intimidating and heavy-handed enforcement measures which devalue property and disregard rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Mr. Chairman, I cannot see how this amendment, which creates more bureaucracy, rather than removing it, can help the situation. The family farms, small family owned businesses, and rural communities in our country do not need more committees and studies. What they do need is relief from the oppressive and extremist-driven bureaucracies and regulations which are driving them into the ground. They need a reasonable definition of wetland that does not require the same degree of protection and mitigation for seasonal puddles that is given to legitimate habitat. They need policies that require the Federal Government to compensate them when it devalues their property. They need to be assured that preserving the livelihoods of families is at least as important as preserving habitat. Mr. Chairman, title VIII of H.R. 961 will unscramble the regulatory maze under section 404, and begin to bring common sense back to our wetlands laws. It will consolidate confusing and conflicting jurisdictions into one regulatory body. It will begin to reverse the preservationists' extremism that is relentlessly chipping away at private property rights. It will remove the confusion and fear that is intimidating property owners who are unable to understand, much less adhere to the law. It will require the Government to pay property owners when it devalues their land. In short, Mr. Chairman, title VIII requires Federal bureaucrats to protect [[Page H4949]] people as well as habitat, and bring our current law back within the parameters of the Constitution. Mr. Chairman, we do not need more regulation, we just need more common sense. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on the Boehlert amendment.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is a crucial step in a tidal wave of reform. Americans are fed up with paying more in taxes than they pay for their families' food, clothing and shelter Americans are fed up with seeing small business drown beneath a suffocating mass of Government regulation, and American taxpayers do not want the Federal Government to be the fastest growing employer in the Nation. Mr. Chairman, in 1993, the Democrats voted for the largest tax increase in history, and they continue to support high taxes today. This legislation pays for all of our tax cuts, and still lowers the deficit by $30 billion. In addition, this bill provides $189 billion in tax relief. Tax relief for families with children, tax relief for young couples beginning to save for their first home, and tax relief for senior citizens living on fixed incomes. Moreover, Mr. Chairman, much of this relief merely gives back to citizens that which was taken away by President Clinton in the 1993 tax bill. The average Californian will save $1,761 a year in taxes if this bill is enacted into law--76 percent of these benefits going to American families. Mr. Chairman, it is time that Washington realizes that income belongs to the worker, not to the Government. Congress must allow American workers to keep more of what they earn--we must also restore the free market incentive which drives our American dream, that same incentive which leads citizens to take risks and create jobs. Vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, the Mink substitute substitutes commonsense welfare reform with increased taxes. Instead of bringing real change to our broken welfare system, this amendment flies in the face of the will of the people by increasing taxes by $20 billion. Clearly, a $20 billion tax increase is not what the voters asked for last November. This substitute retains the failed welfare status quo by retaining AFDC entitlements that have created a cycle of big Government dependency for millions of Americans. It guarantees that former AFDC families will continue receiving benefits almost indefinitely. This substitute is antigrowth and antijob and does little to fix a failed welfare system that has already consumed over $5 trillion in taxpayer dollars since its inception 30 years ago. Mr. Chairman, the Republican welfare reform proposal promotes personal responsibility and creates incentives for families to remain intact instead of creating lifelong dependency on welfare. It discourages illegitimacy by not rewarding unwed mothers that have additional children. It cuts endless, unnecessary Federal regulations and bureaucrats by returning power and flexibility to the States and communities where help for the needy can best be delivered. Let us not take steps backward. Instead, let us move forward and make substantive and fundamental changes in our current welfare system for our future generations. Vote ``no'' on the Mink substitute.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, severe storms and floods have recently ravaged my home State of California, destroying entire communities and claiming over a dozen lives. If flood prevention measures had been available to avoid this catastrophe at no cost to our taxpayers, every Member of Congress would have endorsed them. Mr. Speaker, next summer our Nation will face forest fires as destructive as our recent floods. If unchecked, these fire storms will incinerate public resources, homes, and people. Fortunately, the Taylor-Dicks emergency timber salvage amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill before the House today provides national wildfire protection through the removal of deadly natural fuels from our forests--at no cost to our taxpayers. This is a deal that Americans and Congress simply cannot pass up. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this timely and tax-free legislation.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I inadvertently missed the vote on the Yates amendment to strike the timber sales language in the bill. I would have voted ``no.'' amendment offered by mr. porter

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Yates amendment. This amendment is anti-forest, anti-taxpayer, and pro-fire. Last year 375,000 acres of forest in California and 4 million acres nationwide were incinerated by wildfire at a cost of $1 billion of taxpayer money. This ecological mayhem was caused primarily by the excessive buildup of nature fuels in our forests. Some extreme environmentalists claim that this buildup and the devastation it caused was natural, but to the families of the 33 fire fighters who lost their lives it was an outrageous and needless tragedy. Mr. Chairman, I have forests in my district that are 60 and 70 percent dead and dying due to insects, disease and 7 years of drought. These forests are fire bombs that will explode in the months ahead unless we act now. I urge my colleagues to champion our forests, our fire fighters, our taxpayers. Vote no, no, no to the Yates pro-fire amendment.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, much of our national forests in the West are sick and dying. Drought, disease, insects, and fire are killing our forest in epidemic proportions. Some forests are already 60 and 70 percent dead. We must restore the health of our forests before it is too late. The best way to do this is to remove the source of sickness as soon as possible. Insects and disease cannot kill living trees if we remove the infested trees from the forest. Dead brittle trees cannot become the kindling for wildfire if we extract them from overstocked timber stands. Mr. Speaker, if we really want to preserve our forests, then we must act now. The Taylor-Dicks emergency timber salvage amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill before the House this week will curb the death cycle in our forest. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this crucially important amendment.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington. Recently I participated in a Ways and Means subcommittee hearing on this very program which basically rewards individuals buying communications properties for at least nominally including minority partners. Over the last 17 years, this Federal Program which defers taxation of gains in a sale to a minority purchaser has cost American taxpayers over $2 billion while the number of minority-owned communications businesses has grown very little. Further, 71 percent of all radio stations purchased by minority- controlled groups were resold within an average of 3\1/2\ years. Even proponents of affirmative action admit that this program does nothing for the poor or uneducated. Mr. Chairman, I believe that minority buyers are entitled to every advantage available to nonminorities. However, I strongly oppose creating special racial subgroups of Americans in the tax code. Of all the government-run-amok Federal programs, this has got to be one of the very worst. It is just not equitable that average citizens should pay taxes while multibillion-dollar communication firms and a select few upper class minorities get a free ride on up to $50 million. Clearly, this law creates a hole in the Internal Revenue Code that tax attorneys can drive a truck through. Mr. Chairman, let's treat all citizens equally under the Tax Code. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.