Wally Herger

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Six days, Mr. Speaker. Six days until we exceed the debt limit, and we still haven't seen a plan from the White House. However, we have the first 2\1/2\ years of his administration as an example of the future he wants for America. The President's policies display his commitment to unchecked government spending. The President supports massive tax hikes on a Nation already enduring the worst jobless recovery since the Great Depression. The President is content to ignore our entitlement crisis. His actions over the last 2\1/2\ years have put this country in significantly worse shape than when he took office. We have seen a total failure of leadership from the White House. He threatened to veto the commonsense solutions of Cut, Cap, and Balance. The reason? By his own words, he wants a debt limit increase to carry him through the next election. Mr. Speaker, the American people have had enough. We need action, and we need it now. No more speeches, no more rhetoric. The American people deserve to know what the President's plan is. It's time for President Obama to come to the negotiating table and work with us. We're running a $1.6 trillion deficit, borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. Without action, we will guarantee our children and grandchildren a future far less bright than the one our parents left us. Republicans are here, ready to make the tough decisions, cut spending, and reform the way business is done in Washington. We're ready with solutions that will turn around our debt crisis and begin getting America back to work. But these solutions will remain a fantasy as long as the President's focus remains on politics and reelection rather than the good of the American people. We have 6 days left. It's time to act.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. The national debt has shattered confidence in our economy, has cost jobs, and is preventing our economic recovery. Working families across our Nation are living within their means during tough times. If the rest of America gets it, why doesn't Washington? I recently did a Main Street-style walk-and-talk in my district where I met with a number of small business owners and their employees. They shared their concern about our out-of-control debt and frustration with Washington for enacting policies that hold down job creation and economic growth rather than fostering an environment that will enable them to thrive. But the comment I heard most often was, ``What is Washington thinking?'' I told them I really don't understand it either. President Obama has spent his administration enacting policies that have added more debt to our Nation than the previous 43 Presidents combined. The tragic reality is that the President's big spending policies only made things worse. Unemployment is at 9.2 percent, and that doesn't count the millions who have given up. The President merely fomented a cycle of debt and joblessness that defines the last 2\1/2\ years, which has placed us where we're at today. Now, with the national debt at crisis levels, he is standing in the way of commonsense solutions; offering only lectures, not leadership. He has asked Congress to consent to continue business as usual without making serious spending reforms. As a matter of conscience, this Congress cannot support allowing President Obama to continue to steer America's debt past the point of no return. Mr. Speaker, we will be judged harshly, and rightfully so, by future generations if we fail to act. The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act ends the era of rampant government spending. It immediately reduces spending by $100 billion, cuts $6 trillion over the next 10 years, and demands a strong balanced budget amendment. Mr. Speaker, I believe the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act is what the American people want and what Washington desperately needs.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 600, I inadvertantly missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 432, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 216, I inadvertently voted ``no,'' when I meant to vote ``yes.''

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4. Coming from a small business background myself, I know personally the paperwork burden of misguided government regulations imposed on our Nation's entrepreneurs and job creators. If the expanded 1099 reporting requirement in the Democrats' health care law takes effect, it will be one of the most far-reaching and burdensome unfunded mandates ever created. Small businesses will be required to fill out hundreds, or even thousands, of these forms every year. Yet the revenue supposedly raised by this reporting amounts to less than 1 percent of the estimated annual tax gap. This 1099 rule is devastating to small businesses, and it must be repealed now. H.R. 4 addresses the budgetary costs of repealing the 1099 requirement by cutting wasteful government spending. The Democrats' health law provides subsidies for low-income people to buy health insurance; but if their income goes up and they don't need help any more, they still get to keep a large portion of the subsidy. Getting rid of excess subsidies is not a tax increase. It's simply being responsible with the taxpayers' money. Mr. Speaker, the American people have told us they want two things: more jobs and less spending. The bill before us advances both of these goals, and it deserves the support of every Member of this House.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, as a staunch supporter of dams, I understand my colleague's position on this issue and I intend to support this amendment. The Department of the Interior has been studying the potential removal of four hydroelectric facilities, three of which are located in the Congressional District I represent, and my constituents in Siskiyou County have rightfully expressed overwhelming opposition to the prospect of removing functioning hydropower dams and their associated benefits. I fully share that concern, as well as the disturbing precedent it sets with respect to other hydroelectric projects. From my longtime advocacy for projects such as the proposed Sites Reservoir in Colusa County, the Auburn Dam on the American River, a dam on the Yuba River and raising Shasta Dam, few Members of Congress have been a stronger supporter of increasing surface water storage. These marvels of engineering have allowed California to prosper by providing critical water to get us through drought years, flood control, and cheap, renewable hydroelectric power. Put simply, we need more dams, not fewer. For those reasons, it is troubling that we are even here discussing this issue. We need to change the current regulatory structure that gives perceived ``environmental benefits'' unyielding priority--often at unbearable cost--over the social and economic benefits provided to people by dams and other wise-use of our resources: These laws and regulations have forced the owner and operator of the dams on the Klamath River to a point where decommissioning these facilities--by way of the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement--is the least-cost option for its customers and ratepayers in California and elsewhere, as opposed to relicensing. These laws and regulations also caused the tragic 2001 water shutoff that affected 1,200 farm families in the Klamath Basin and led them to enter into this settlement process in the hopes of bringing greater stability and water reliability to the Basin in order to continue their way of life. It represents a monumental failure at the federal level when we consider that, under the laws and regulations that are on the books at this moment, there is currently no alternative that will allow these facilities to be operated as cost-effectively as it had during the several decades of its previous license term, or allow the federal government to fully meet the obligations it made over a century ago with the development of the Klamath Reclamation Project. I.say this to make the point that, unfortunately, this amendment by itself will not address the real underlying issue--the appalling environmental extortion that continues to affect property owners across the rural West and the hardworking people who put food on our tables and provide the raw materials that make life comfortable for the rest of us. Clearly, our laws are grossly out of balance, and I look forward to working with Chairman McClintock, Chairman Hastings, Mr. Walden and my other colleagues to implement the necessary environmental reforms to prevent the continued degradation of our economic infrastructure at the hands of environmental activists and bring greater certaiity to the Klamath Basin's agricultural community.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Again, we're not saying we shouldn't look at this, we shouldn't examine it, we shouldn't have regulations. We should. Those of us who live in these areas, we care about the environment more than anyone does. That's not the question. The question that is being presented and what we're asking for is, since the Forest Service has not been consulting with local government, they have not been consulting with the local communities, we are asking for a 7-month timeout so that they can consult with us and then we can continue to come up with a plan where we work together and not have, again, an all-powerful government in Washington dictating and preventing those that are local from being able to enjoy our own recreation in our national forest. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HERGER. I have to comment that really all we're doing is asking for a 7-month timeout so that we--our local officials, our local communities have not been counseled with, they have not been brought into the process, and to have 90 percent in many areas declared off- bounds is not reasonable. I would like to yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I'm offering this amendment after much frustration and a lack of responsiveness from the Forest Service to locally elected officials and the recreation community in northern California and across the Nation. For a couple of years now, I and northern California constituents I represent have tried many times to work with the Forest Service on the 2005 Travel Management Rule. Yet we have been completely ignored as the Forest Service presses ahead with route designations that in some cases will eliminate more than 90 percent of the previous access. Locally elected officials are now at the point of considering litigation against the Forest Service to keep these federal lands open to recreation. It is disgraceful that local counties would have to spend valuable public funding to preserve access to our own national forests. Not only are our counties forced to defend themselves against well funded environmental activists trying to turn every acre of federal land into some kind of sanctuary, but now also against the very agency that is supposed to serve the public. For these reasons, I believe it is necessary to impose a 7-month timeout on designating these routes. Chairman Simpson, ultimately, we want a workable solution, and I hope to work with you and Chairman Hastings to ensure a more balanced implementation of the Travel Management Rule. I hope that my colleagues can support this amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, as a staunch supporter of dams, I understand my colleague's position on this issue, and I support this amendment. The constituents I represent overwhelmingly oppose removing functioning hydropower and its associated benefits. I fully share that concern and the disturbing precedent it sets. I think it represents a monumental failure that current Federal laws and regulations provide no alternative that will allow these dams to be operated as cost effectively as they were during the previous licensed term or that will allow the Federal Government to fully meet the obligations it made to the Klamath Basin agriculture with the development of the Klamath Reclamation Project. As such, this amendment by itself will, unfortunately, not address the underlying issue, which is the environmental extortion that impacts property owners across the West and that impacts the hardworking people who depend on the land for their livelihoods. Our laws are grossly out of balance, so I look forward to working with Chairman Hastings and Chairman McClintock on the necessary reforms to prevent this continued abuse and to bring greater certainty to the Klamath Basin's agricultural community.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his leadership in working to bring more congressional oversight to the regulatory process. The heavy hand of overbearing environmental regulations has struck my northern California rural congressional district in full force. The Endangered Species Act, in addition to regulations under the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and other environmental laws continue to be enforced by Federal agencies and activists to curtail irrigation water for family farms and ranches, force communities and developers to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on environmental ``analysis'' and even threaten public health and safety by delaying forest management to reduce catastrophic wildfire and much needed infrastructure such as flood preventing levees and transportation improvements. Another set of job-crushing regulations surrounds the 3 percent withholding tax that is set to go into effect next year. This tax will cost far more in unfunded mandates on small businesses and State and local governments than it will ever raise in revenue for the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I will be reintroducing bipartisan legislation to repeal the unfair 3 percent withholding tax. I would like to enter into the record a letter from the Government Withholding Relief Coalition highlighting this provision's regulatory burden and urging its repeal. I strongly support this resolution and look forward to stopping the regulatory assault on my constituents and our Nation's economy. Government Withholding Relief Coalition, January 28, 2011. Re: regulations and their impact on the economy and jobs. Hon. Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Issa: The Government Withholding Relief Coalition and its 116 member associations appreciate your interest in regulations that negatively impact the economy and jobs. We welcome the opportunity to highlight one specific issue that was the genesis for the creation of this coalition: the 3% tax withholding mandate. This requirement is set to go into effect on January 1, 2012 if it is not repealed. It will cost jobs and waste significant amounts of time and money for companies as well as governments to implement. The 3% withholding law, which was enacted in Section 511 of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-222) as section 3402(t) of the Internal Revenue Code, mandates that federal, state, and local governments withhold 3% of nearly all of their contract payments, Medicare payments, farm payments, and certain grants. Compliance with this law will impose significant, unnecessary financial burdens on both the public and private sectors, with a disproportionate impact on small businesses. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a proposed rule in December 2008 and is scheduled to issue a final rule to implement this counterproductive law in the near future. However, this is just the beginning of the regulations that need to be altered and issued. The Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) will need to be changed, and regulations for Medicare payment, farm payments, and grants will also need to be modified. These are merely the federal regulations that will need to be changed, but since this requirement flows down to state and local governments (as an unfunded mandate), every state and many city, county, and municipal governments will need to change their regulations and companies will have to learn to comply with these numerous and likely divergent implementing regulations. The provision is already proving costly and will increase exponentially as the implementation deadline moves closer. If this tax is not repealed, it will cost companies and governments at all levels substantial amounts of money. These exorbitant expenditures will be at the expense of hiring new employees, expanding businesses, and providing government services at a time that neither the public nor private sector can absorb such unnecessary costs. The Department of Defense in April 2008 estimated that it would cost more than $17 billion in the first five years to comply with the 3% withholding requirement, which far exceeds any estimated revenue gains due to tax compliance. While this estimate may be reduced depending on how the law is implemented, needless to say, the costs will be huge across all levels of government. The Coalition believes this law and its corresponding regulations are a prime example of wasteful requirements that have a negative impact on the economy and job-creation. As you develop your agenda, we strongly urge you to consider the damaging effects of the 3% withholding tax and include its repeal among your priorities for this year. Sincerely, Government Withholding Relief Coalition. Aeronautical Repair Station Association, Aerospace Industries Association, Air Conditioning Contractors of America, Air Transport Association, America's Health Insurance Plans, American Bankers Association, American Clinical Laboratory Association, American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association, American Congress on Surveying and Mapping, American Council of Education, American Council of Engineering Companies, American Heath Care Association, American Institute of Architects, American Logistics Association, American Moving and Storage Association, American Nursery and Landscape Association, and American Road & Transportation Builders Association. American Society of Civil Engineers, American Subcontractors Association, American Supply Association, American Traffic Safety Services Association, American Trucking Associations, Armed Forces Marketing Council, Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated Equipment Distributors, Association of National Account Executives, Association of School Business Officials International, Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturers Association, California Association of Public Purchasing Officers, Coalition for Government Procurement, Colorado Motor Carriers Association, Computing Technology Industry Association, Construction Contractors Association, and Construction Employers' Association of California. Construction Industry Round Table, Construction Management Association of America, Design Professionals Coalition, Edison Electric Institute, Electronic Security Association, Engineering & Utility Contractors Association, Federation of American Hospitals, Financial Executives International's Committee on Government Business, Financial Executives International's Committee on Taxation, Finishing Contractors Association, Gold Coast Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Government Finance Officers Association, Independent Electrical Contractors, Inc., International City/County Management Association, and International Council of Employers of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers. International Foodservice Distributors Association, International Municipal Lawyers Association, Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors, Mason Contractors Association of America, Mechanical Contractors Association of America, Medical Group Management Association, Messenger Courier Association of the Americas, Miami Dade County, Modular Building Institute, Munitions Industrial Base Task Force, National Asphalt Pavement Association, National Association for Self-Employed, National Association of College & University Business Officers, National Association of Counties, National Association of Credit Management, and National Association of Educational Procurement. National Association of Government Contractors, National Association of Manufacturers, National Association of Minority Contractors, National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers, National Association of State Chief Information Officers, National Association of State Procurement Officials, National Association of Wholesaler- Distributors, National Beer Wholesalers Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Council for Public Procurement and Contracting, National Defense Industrial Association, National Electrical Contractors Association, and National Electrical Manufacturers Association. National Emergency Equipment Dealers Association, National Federation of Independent Business, National Institute of Governmental Purchasing, National Italian-American Business Association, National League of Cities, National Precast Concrete Association, National Office Products Alliance, National Roofing Contractors Association, National Small Business Association, National Society of Professional Engineers, and National Society of Professional Surveyors. National Utility Contractors Association, National Wooden Pallet and Container Association, North-American Association of Uniform Manufacturers & Distributors, North Coast Builders Exchange, Office Furniture Dealers Alliance, Oregon Trucking Association, Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors--National Association, Printing Industries of America, Professional Services Council, Regional Legislative Alliance of Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties, Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce, Security Industry Association, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Council, and Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association, Inc. Shipbuilders Council of America, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, Small Business Legislative Council, TechAmerica, Textile Rental Services Association of America, The Associated General Contractors of America, The Association of Union Constructors, The Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S., The Financial Services Roundtable, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, United States Telecom Association, Veterans Entrepreneurship Task Force, and Women Impacting Public Policy.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. I want to thank my good friend from California (Mr. Dreier). Particularly, I want to thank my good friend for leading us in this incredibly special, special time to remember an individual who, as we have heard from the speakers before me, individuals like Mr. Dreier who actually spent a lot of time with President Reagan, sharing with us the incredible person, an inspiration, that our 40th President, who we are celebrating this week the 100th anniversary of his birth, is to each of us. As the gentleman mentioned, I did have the privilege of serving for his last 2 years as President, 1987 and 1988. But I think about what President Reagan meant to me, and when I think about what he meant to me, I know as I have listened to these speakers before me what he meant to so many of us in our Nation and the world today. My friend Mr. Dreier mentioned in his early remarks what the country was like in 1980 when Ronald Reagan ran for President. We think what it is like today. We have over 9 percent unemployment. We have very low inflation. But in 1980, when President Reagan was running, we had not 9 percent unemployment, but 12 percent unemployment. We had something that we haven't had since the early days of President Reagan's administration, and that was inflation, inflation that was running 13 percent. As a small businessman then, I remember what it was like. You did not know what to price your products at because you didn't know what you were going to be buying them for again, and it was an unbelievably challenging time. Plus, as a small businessperson, we had a prime interest rate that was 21.5 percent. We had home mortgages that were hitting 16 percent. Now, those of us who can remember back at that time, talk about challenging times, those were challenging times. And to have someone who was the type of inspiration that Ronald Reagan was, who literally exemplified everything he believed, and we heard so much from our speakers before me, but to Ronald Reagan it was morning in America. He believed. He not only had confidence in himself, he had even more confidence in our Nation. He had confidence in those of us who were small business people, who were Americans. As was mentioned, it didn't matter whether you were immigrants, like my grandparents were from Switzerland, you were an American. He had not only confidence in this, but he could emulate this to all of those around us. It was interesting, because back about 10 years ago in a Republican Conference of fellow Republicans in Congress, someone asked a question, who among us, and there were, I don't know, about 150 or so, who among us were inspired by Ronald Reagan to run originally. And over half of us raised our hands. As a matter of fact, it was about three-quarters of us. It was Ronald Reagan who inspired us to leave our positions as a small businessman, as a family rancher or dairy person to run for office. So we see it today. We see those who ran this last time, a very similar time. But God bless Ronald Reagan. God bless all that he inspired us with. And, Mr. Dreier, I want to thank you for leading us. This is one of the greatest times of my life, to be able to participate along with you and Mr. Lungren and Mr. Rohrabacher and others in remembering someone who I believe is one of the very greatest Americans ever to live, Ronald Reagan. Thank you.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 25, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Stated against:

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, for the last few years, national forests throughout California have been in the process of implementing the Forest Service's 2005 Travel Management Rule, TMR. As a result, many national forests have proposed to reduce off-highway vehicle, OHV, access by 90 percent or more, in addition to restricting use on so- called maintenance-level 3, ML-3, roads by classifying them as ``highways.'' Throughout the travel management process, recreational users and local governments provided substantive documentation and comments to address safety issues and other concerns with this flawed policy. Despite the best efforts of these elected officials and pro-access groups, their comments were all but ignored as the Forest Service moved forward with the TMR. For these reasons, and given the significant economic damage this rule will cause to recreational communities throughout California, I have introduced legislation, H.R. 242, to restrict funding to the Forest Service to continue implementing the TMR in the State of California until the agency develops a more balanced and workable OHV policy. Repeated requests for the Forest Service to change course within its own authority have gone unanswered. This legislation will help ensure that this agency is being held accountable to the public it is required to serve instead of using their tax dollars to restrict access to their Federal lands. I would encourage you to support H.R. 242.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to General Vang Pao, the revered leader of the Hmong community residing in my Northern California congressional district and throughout the United States. I join that community in mourning his loss. It is fitting for all Americans to pause and reflect on General Vang Pao's steadfast alliance with the United States during the Vietnam War. General Vang Pao commanded the Secret Army, a highly effective CIA- trained and supported force that fought against the Pathet Lao and People's Army of Vietnam. His tremendous courage and leadership aided American soldiers against aggression from the North Vietnamese. By fighting valiantly at our nation's side, he helped preserve and protect our way of life. Our nation should not forget General Vang Pao's contributions to the American cause. We must also remember the Hmong who lost their lives or who were forced out of their homeland as they fought against the evils of communism. They sacrificed tremendously and deserve our enduring gratitude.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. I rise in strong support of this legislation to repeal ObamaCare. Madam Speaker, Americans expect a new Congress to make job creation a priority and get our country back on the path of fiscal responsibility. Any serious plan to achieve these goals must begin with repeal of ObamaCare. Madam Speaker, I represent 10 rural counties in northern California with chronically high unemployment rates. Last year I spoke with the owner of a restaurant chain based in Redding, California. He had originally planned to open 10 new locations this year, creating hundreds of new jobs. But because of the higher labor costs imposed by ObamaCare, he has decided not to expand at all. At the other end of my district in California's Capay Valley, I have heard from a family-owned farm that delivers fresh produce to residents across the State. They are facing a staggering $1.7 million in costs from the new health care mandates. Add these to thousands of similar stories across the country, and it's clear that this law will have a devastating impact on workers and employers alike. That's why the National Federation of Independent Business and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are urging Congress to vote ``yes'' on repeal. My friends on the other side claim that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit. Yet no one truly believes that a new trillion-dollar government entitlement is the solution to a deficit crisis caused by reckless spending. As 200 respected economists wrote just this week, the assertion that ObamaCare is ``paid for'' is ``based on omitted costs, budgetary gimmicks, shifted premiums from other entitlements, and unsustainable spending cuts and revenue increases.'' These economists conclude that ObamaCare could actually increase the deficit by more than $500 billion the first decade and by nearly $1.5 trillion the following decade. Madam Speaker, Republicans are committed to advancing genuine reforms that reduce the cost of health care, but we must begin by doing away with this bad law that moves our health care system in the wrong direction. Vote ``yes'' on repeal.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chair, Title VII of this legislation provides for the extension of a number of tax provisions that expired at the end of 2009, or were set to expire at the end of 2010. I understand an effort was made to limit this title to what are known as the ``traditional'' tax extenders, with the general test being whether or not an expiring provision had been extended in the past. As a result of this decision, several provisions that expired for the first time at the end of 2009, and that had been included in previous drafts of tax extenders legislation, are not extended in this bill. One of these, the Section 45 production tax credit for electricity produced at open-loop biomass facilities placed in service before October 22, 2004, is important to a number of energy producers in the district I represent. Under current law, these facilities were permitted to claim the production tax credit for 5 years, ending in 2009. Previous tax extension proposals included a 2-year extension of this credit period. As a matter of simple fairness, I believe it is only right that these biomass producers should be able to claim the production tax credit for the same 10-year period afforded to the other renewable electricity producers covered under Section 45. It is my understanding that no judgment was made on the policy merits of individual expiring tax provisions, and therefore no negative inference should be drawn against provisions that are not included in this legislation simply because they had not been extended in the past. I look forward to working with other members of the Ways and Means Committee in the 112th Congress to review these provisions and determine which ones are worthy of extension.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Chairman, the bill that came to us from the Senate is far from perfect. I'm going to vote ``yes'' because if the scheduled $3.8 trillion tax increase takes effect in just 2 weeks, the consequences for our economy could be catastrophic. Even if we reversed this tax hike next year, families and small businesses would see higher taxes immediately on January 1. According to the Tax Foundation, the average middle class family in my own northern California district would see their Federal income taxes more than double. People in my district are already struggling. Small businesses are barely hanging on. The unemployment rate is near 20 percent in several counties I represent. We simply cannot afford this enormous tax hit. This has been a difficult decision for me. I'm outraged that the President and the Democratic leaders are demanding billions of dollars in unpaid-for spending on unemployment benefits and special interest giveaways as the price for stopping a massive tax increase. Additionally, we should be making the current tax rate permanent. If businesses face the threat of another tax increase in 2 years, they will be reluctant to make investments that pay off in 5 or 10 years. Madam Chairman, we have to provide long-term certainty for America's small businesses. I commend Mr. Camp for his dedication to protecting taxpayers and his hard work on this legislation. In the next Congress, I look forward to working with Chairman Camp to fix this bill's flaws. We must bring permanency to the Tax Code, and we must cut wasteful Federal spending, both to pay for the unemployment benefits and also to start bringing down our unsustainable Federal deficit. Finally, I know from personal experience how much of a burden the death tax is for family businesses. My relatives on my mother's side of the family had to sell our own family's farm in North Dakota just to pay the death tax bill. That should not happen in America. I urge the House to vote ``no'' on the Pomeroy death tax amendment and ``yes'' on the Senate bill.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee and a member of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with renewed hope that our Nation's trade agenda may soon move forward. This legislation includes an extension of trade preference programs, which is important, but is no substitute for passing our pending market-opening agreements with Colombia, Panama, and Korea. Mr. Speaker, if we hope to remain the key player in the global marketplace, we must do all we can to strengthen our ties to important democratic allies. Passage of these agreements will boost economic growth and create U.S. jobs by tearing down trade barriers and significantly increasing our exports into these markets, while at the same time enhancing our national security by bringing greater stability to Asia and South America. Take the U.S.-Colombia agreement, for example. Colombia is the largest market for U.S. agricultural exports in South America, which makes it an important market for my agriculturally rich northern California district. Yet, we have seen our agriculture exports to Colombia decline by 65 percent over the last 2 years because our products still face tariffs and other barriers, while agriculture products from Argentina and Brazil, two major competitors for America's farmers and ranchers, received duty-free access to the Colombian market. The reason for the disparity is simple: Argentina and Brazil have implemented a trade agreement with Colombia, while our Nation has not. This trend, of U.S. producers losing out to foreign competitors, will only get worse as the European Union and Canada are moving towards implementing their own agreements with Colombia. Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to recognize that continued inaction is suppressing job creation for Americans out of work and denying our producers new opportunities to export. Congress should pass our pending trade agreements without further delays. I urge the Congress and my colleagues to support this legislation.