Floor Statements

Madam Chair, on behalf of the Joint Economic Committee, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

This country is starved for truth-tellers, people in Congress who will just tell them what the problems are that this country faces, give them options and help them make the right choice, people who are strong enough to lead and bold enough to lead at a time when the country needs leadership. When it comes to the budget, when it comes to the economy where the President has failed, House Republicans will lead.

The Paul Ryan budget helps spur job creation in America today. It stops spending money the government doesn't have. It lifts the crushing burden of debt. This plan puts the budget on the path to balance in paying down the debt over the long term, and it puts the economy on the path to prosperity.

Let's talk about the economy. It is the number one concern of most people, and the debt and deficit have a lot to do with it.

We are undergoing one of the worst recoveries we've seen in a long time. It is two to three times slower than the Reagan recovery, and there is reason for that. We were told by the President and congressional Democrats that if we just spent money, spend it in the stimulus and spend it in increased deficits, that the economy would recover. And they were wrong. After spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the stimulus, we have 2 million fewer jobs in America today than when the stimulus began. We have fewer jobs today than when all that spending took off.

We were told if Congress passed all the stimulus bills that our unemployment rate today would be 6.8 percent. It's 8.8 percent. And it's only that low because so many people have given up simply looking for work anymore. They've lost hope. And then finally, for those who say we just spend more to create this economy, they were off, their predictions, by 7 million American jobs.

It's time to stop listening to the economists who got it wrong and start listening to economists who got it right.

Let's take a look at what spending has done to our economy in America. Here is a chart. It looks back on the last 40 years in America, and it tracks Federal Government spending against job creation along Main Street, not government jobs but jobs in the private sector, the small-, medium-, and large-sized businesses that our economy depends upon. The blue line is government spending. The red line represents jobs along Main Street. You can tell with the blue line. Look at how different job creation is. In fact, over each of these four decades, not only is there no correlation between Federal spending and jobs along Main Street, but it's a negative correlation in each of the 4 decades. As government spending goes up, jobs along Main Street go down.

Look at this next chart. We also went back the last four decades in America and asked about private business investment. What happens when companies large and small buy new equipment, buy new software, buy new buildings, and invest back in the economy? Here is the chart. The blue is the private, fixed investment from business. The red is job creation along Main Street. As you can tell, it's a very close correlation.

In fact, there is no substitute in America for private investment in the economy--no substitute, no rebates, no stimulus, no shovel-ready projects. Nothing is a substitute for creating jobs like getting businesses to invest back in their workforces, in their workplaces and in the economy.

Recently, I had the Joint Economic Committee take a look at the economic studies over the last 40 years of our competitors around the world, competitor countries that got themselves into debt trouble but that worked their way out of it. You would be interested in the results of this

study, and there are three key points to it.

One is that the countries that were most successful in getting their debt down, in getting ahold of their financial paths, didn't do it by raising taxes. That didn't succeed. They did it by reducing spending. That's how they best and most successfully got ahold of their debt. There were 21 times that 10 different of our global competitor countries got a handle on their debt successfully by reducing spending.

The second takeaway from this study, called ``Spend Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy,'' was that countries that got ahold of their debt the right way also grew the economy as well. Economists agree that the countries that get their financial houses in order grow their economies over the long term. What this study shows is that, with our competitors, if you get a handle on your spending the right way, you grow your economy in the short term as well.

Here is Canada. Neighboring Canada got themselves in financial trouble. Their economy was growing at a paltry pace, less than 1 percent a year. They lowered their debt as a nation by about 12 percentage points, and their economy took off. For almost 16 years, they've averaged economic growth of almost 3\1/2\ percent.

Sweden, another developed country with an economy like ours, actually had an economy that was shrinking. It was actually contracting. They got ahold of their financial house and put that in order as well, reducing their debt by more than 11 percentage points. Their economy took off, growing 3\1/2\ percent a year, on average, for almost a decade. New Zealand did the same.

You may say, Look, we're not Canada; we're not New Zealand; we're not Sweden. Yet 26 times, nine of our competitor countries around the world that lowered their debt by reducing spending grew their economies strongly, not just in the long term but in the short term. They didn't grow them a little. Those countries rocketed to the top quarter of economic growth in the world. Countries that reduce their spending and do it the right way grow their economies.

Here is a third and another, again, telling point about this, which is that not all spending cuts are the same. When it comes time to grow the economy, not all spending cuts are the same.

What these economists showed is that the nations that grew their economies the most successfully undertook cuts that were large, credible and difficult to reverse. So they made cuts in savings that mattered, and the cuts in savings that grew their economies made sense. They shrunk their Federal workforces. They right-sized them to what they could afford. They eliminated duplicate programs, obsolete programs--as a business would--programs that waste money. They reduced subsidies to corporations which were interfering in the free marketplace. Finally, they tackled their entitlement reforms in health care and in pensions. What is interesting is that, even if the reforms they made in their entitlements didn't affect their current beneficiaries and even if they phased those reforms in over time, the reforms sent the right signals to the marketplace.

Then what happened in each of these countries is that businesses, in no longer facing higher taxes because of all that spending, felt comfortable getting to reinvest back into their workforces, back into their countries' economies. Households like ours, in no longer facing higher taxes to pay for all these spending sprees, felt more comfortable buying larger ticket items, like cars and houses. As we know, when businesses invest, jobs along Main Street grow. It has been made clear time and time and time again, like businesses, countries that can get ahold of their debt, that can do it the right way and that can put themselves on financially sound paths grow. America's economy can grow as well.

The budget resolution presented tonight by Chairman Paul Ryan meets the test that spending reductions must be large, credible and difficult to reverse once made to boost our economy:

The Ryan budget attacks the medical entitlements that are driving Federal spending higher. It attacks corporate welfare by phasing out government guaranties to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It eliminates subsidies for green energy, and it reduces agriculture subsidies by $30 billion over the next decade. The Ryan budget rolls back non-security discretionary spending to its 2008 levels and then freezes it for 5 years.

It adopts a number of the recommendations from the President's own fiscal commission to eliminate waste and to achieve real savings in our budget. It eliminates agencies and programs identified by our own government as wasteful and duplicative. That alone will save over $100 billion in the next decade.

It reduces the Federal workforce. It right-sizes the Federal workforce by 10 percent over the next 5 years by attrition, simply by hiring only one new Federal employee for every three employees who leave or retire. Together, that saves almost $400 billion.

The Ryan budget envisions a pro-growth tax reform that lowers the top income tax rate for both individuals and companies to 25 percent and makes us competitive again in this world.

The Ryan budget is a fiscally responsible plan that accelerates economic growth and job creation. It is a game-changer for this Nation and tells the truth about our challenges, and addresses them with ideas and proven solutions that move us forward.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would remind the listeners that it was Democrats who fought the prescription drug program for our seniors; who last year slashed a half-trillion dollars from our seniors programs, which will hurt our local hospitals, our nursing homes, our hospice programs. They're going to drive 7 million American seniors out of their Medicare Advantage plan. And yet they failed to lead to preserve Medicare for every generation once and for all. They failed; we're going to lead.

At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to a new member of the Joint Economic Committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Yielding myself 30 seconds, I would remind our colleagues that are Democrats that Congress slashed a half trillion dollars from our seniors' care, including nursing homes, just last year. I will also remind our colleagues that Medicare is insolvent. The biggest threat to our seniors today is to do nothing.

Democrats and the President failed to lead. Republicans are not only going to preserve Medicare as it is today for those 55 and older, but for the younger generation, we are going to give them the choices and the options to preserve that program for them for their entire life.

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to a new member of the Joint Economic Committee who understands that government doesn't create jobs, it is the private sector that creates jobs, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Yielding myself 30 seconds, I can't help but think many Democrats are eager for everyone else to sacrifice. What about government? Why can't government sacrifice a little? All of those obsolete agencies and all of those wasteful programs, the money they spit away on stimulus programs and to bail out anyone who needs it. Maybe it is time for shared sacrifice, and it can start with the big, fat, bloated Federal Government.

At this time, I'd like to yield 5 minutes to a physician who has delivered more than 3,000 babies in his life, is a valued member of the Joint Economic Committee, and expert on health care and many of our health care entitlements, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would remind our listeners that it was our Democrats who fought the prescription drug program that has been so critical for seniors to buy their medicine. They slashed half a trillion dollars from Medicare to pay for the new ObamaCare plan, and they did nothing to preserve Medicaid for our seniors.

The exaggerations today that are flying through this Chamber really are shameful. What the Republicans are intent on doing is preserving Medicare for every generation. We are not going to bury our heads in the sand.

I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.

The Democrats have failed to lead on these important entitlement programs. They had their chance. They failed. The Republicans will lead, and we will preserve those programs.

Madam Chair, how many Americans really think this country is heading in the right direction? How many Americans, middle class Americans, believe that these deficits, trillion-dollar deficits, can go on and on as far as the eye can see? Although Americans believe that they have better lives and opportunities than their parents, how many of them question whether their children will have the same opportunities in America today?

You know, we can't continue to go down this path, and that's what the Ryan Republican budget is all about, a new direction for America where we no longer hide our heads in the sand and ignore the problems facing America.

Paul Ryan and the Republican budget tell the truth to the American public about how serious a problem we face as a Nation. It offers real commonsense solutions to address them. It gives them ideas that work, solutions that work. It creates economic growth and job creation by fostering the right business climate for growth in America.

It tackles our spending, dangerous spending deficits, by reducing those over time, implying and imposing discipline on our Federal Government. So they have to live within the same means our families and small businesses have to. It provides real security for our seniors and Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security.

More importantly, it offers hope for young people who don't think those programs will ever be around again. Paul Ryan and the Republican budget offer some hope that they don't have today, and it repeals this terrible ObamaCare and gives America hope again.

I strongly support this budget.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 250, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Garrett Joseph Maliska of Bryan, Texas.

Garrett entered into rest on February 28 at his home with his family by his side. He was 17 years old. Garrett had battled with Spinal Cord Glioblastoma Cancer since March of 2008.

Garrett was an exceptional young man. He touched everyone that he came in contact with. His friends, teammates, teachers, and classmates all admired the strength with which he carried himself through his hard fought battle with this disease.

Garrett, a member of the baseball team, continued to remain on the team's roster throughout his cancer fight. Many of his teammates and friends all shaved their heads in solidarity with him over this time.

Garrett was a senior at Bryan High School who was well respected in the community for his character and perseverance during his difficult fight. He made a lasting impression on everyone in the community he met, who saw the strength in which he carried himself despite facing this hardship.

Garrett planned on attending Texas A&M upon graduation and becoming an Aggie. His spirit will live on and a scholarship will live on in his name, ``The Heart of G Scholarship.''

Our thoughts and prayers are with the Maliska family at this difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make known that I was unable to cast a ``yes'' vote on Final Passage of H.R. 836, the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program Termination Act. I am in favor of this legislation and would like the Record to reflect my support.

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow on with what Chairman Camp made such an important point of here. This new national takeover of health care is just a mess in so many ways. Two of them we highlight today. One, our Democratic friends heaped a huge new pay-for burden on our small businesses that none of them frankly can comply with. And then they create a loophole where some people in America can get taxpayer subsidies even if they don't qualify for them.

So let's be clear. Today we are fixing two huge Democratic messes that they made, and we're going to fix them because our small businesses can't take more of this burden. Many of them are barely hanging on as it is today. Secondly, with these huge deficits, we can't afford more fraud and abuse in our government system. So we apply a pretty simple principle: if you get Federal money you don't qualify for, you're going to have to repay it. Not everyone. If you're moderate income or below, we understand you don't have that money. But if you're making higher than the national average, if you're making $70,000, $80,000, $90,000 a year and you got a subsidy from some other family that you don't deserve, you're going to have to give it back.

That's what this bill does. It takes a huge burden off our small businesses they never should have had but our Democrat friends put on them, and then we're going to ask people to repay money they should never have got that our Democrat friends allowed them to get. This actually is a bipartisan bill. At the end of the day, watch the vote. You'll see so many people in this Congress saying it's time to fix this. We're going to fix this mess today.

Madam Chair, I am sympathetic to this amendment. The United States should live up to its WTO obligations, particularly if we expect other countries to do the same.

Paying Brazil about $12 million a month rather than complying with the WTO decision regarding cotton subsidies isn't the best way to resolve this dispute. I acknowledge that. But this settlement is necessary to prevent Brazil from imposing almost $1 billion in retaliation against American goods and services, as it's entitled to do.

This retaliation could take many dangerous and costly forms, including high tariffs on our American sales abroad and allowing Brazil to no longer protect American intellectual property rights. Such retaliation would be devastating. It would cost U.S. jobs and harm thousands of innocent workers who have nothing to do with this case.

As a result, I must oppose this amendment and urge its defeat.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You remember Paul Harvey's ``The Rest of the Story''? You want to hear what's really behind this debate?

In the mid-1990s, worried about how much oil we're importing from the Middle East, the government encouraged companies to go out deeper into the gulf to create American-made energy here in the United States. So for 4 years they signed lease agreements. And companies here in America, they paid millions of dollars for these leases with no knowledge of whether there was oil there or not, or gas.

They spent billions of dollars to drill in depths they hadn't before--again, not knowing if they would hit anything or not. They used American companies to do it on American platforms with American workers. And guess what? It worked. They created American-made oil and natural gas, and they kept it here for us. This outraged the Democrats: How could this happen? And by the way, these companies paid billions of dollars of royalty not on the price, but on how much they bring out of the ground. It was a win-win situation--taxpayers win, our jobs win, we get American-made energy.

Outraged, they took it to court. Four times the court said--they wanted the American Government to break its own contract--the court, four times, including the Supreme Court, said no. Now they've tried to extort U.S. companies in saying, you must break your contract, or we will deny you any chance

to do business in the Gulf of Mexico. That's what this amendment is about. It's extortion. They want businesses to break the contract with America that America can't break itself.

If the government has power to force you to break the agreement they made with you, how much power will they have over you, over your family, over your business? And by the way, what's wrong with creating good old-fashioned American energy here in this country with our workers, with our companies, with the revenues coming to us and to the local communities, giving us affordable energy? Isn't that what America is also about?

Our energy jobs aren't expendable. Stop sending our oil and gas workers to the unemployment line. Let them explore right here in America. Does Hugo Chavez really need a bigger incentive to sell more oil in the United States of America?

This amendment needs to go down on this House floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for your leadership as well.

``Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement.''

Mr. Speaker, that was one of the many quips we remember from the Great Communicator, Ronald Reagan. As we mark the 100th anniversary of his birth this week on Capitol Hill, we reflect on President Reagan's many accomplishments, his leadership in tough economic times, and his ability to bring us together, which was good humor.

During his presidency, Ronald Reagan worked across the aisle to grow our economy by cutting tax rates and getting Washington off the backs of our job creators. He believed, as he said, ``entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States.'' He said, ``concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.''

Those two statements of President Reagan's were never more true than today, as we have a much greater and bigger Washington bureaucracy than we could have ever imagined or could ever afford.

President Reagan believed that we grow our economy by getting Washington out of the way, not by spending more tax dollars borrowed from our children and grandchildren. President Reagan knew that fiscal responsibility was key to our freedom, and he said, ``if we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to.''

The American economy is at a crossroads, and the good news is we have been here before, and we know the way to a stronger future, thanks to Ronald Reagan.

Mr. Speaker, to those middle class Americans listening to the debate today, let me speak to you. This is your life. This is your health. You deserve the right to make your own decisions about your health

care rather than being forced into some government-run plan that is centered around what Washington needs and not what you need.

Thanks to the last Congress, this is your new health care plan. We had our staff spend 4 months, weekends and evenings, going through all 2,801 pages of that bill, and we just said, tell us how it works. And this is the answer. We couldn't even fit the whole bill on one page. This is one-third of all the new bureaucracies. At the bottom line, 159 new Federal Government agencies, commissions and bureaucracies in between you and your doctor.

Now, is this the health care reform you were hoping for? If ObamaCare is so great for families, why are health care costs going up and going to go up even higher? If it's so great for small businesses, why are they here today in Washington pleading for us to stop it? And if it's so great for seniors, why have so many been forced out of their Medicare Advantage plan? They can't even see a local doctor anymore because so many local doctors can't see them. They can't afford to cover Medicare senior patients.

Health care is too important to get wrong, and ObamaCare got it wrong. American families, our seniors and our businesses deserve better; and the right place to start is to start over. Repeal ObamaCare and let's come back with some commonsense reforms America can embrace.

Madam Speaker, we gather here today to honor the victims and the heroes of the tragic shooting that took place in Arizona this past weekend.

Gabby Giffords is one of the best this institution has to offer. I have had the honor of working with her on NASA issues in support of human spaceflight.

Gabby embodies the type of public servant many of us strive to be: smart, kind, and dedicated, fulfilling her duty representing her constituents. That's why she was holding a public meeting on the first weekend of the new session.

I pray for her strong recovery and for her family and staff, and I look forward to working with her once more in this body.

I think in the darkest moments in our history we also see the brightest stars. Those stars are the men who wrestled the gunman to the floor, the woman who kicked the magazine away, the loved ones who protected their spouses and children, the intern who had enough first aid training to put pressure on Gabby's head wound, the first responders who responded to that scene, and the medical teams that got most of the victims into the operating rooms in under 38 minutes.

Gabby's staff so clearly reflects her character and leadership. Gabe Zimmerman lost his life fulfilling his duty, and two others were wounded. We pray for their recovery and for Gabe's family and friends in this time of tragedy. The efforts of her intern, Daniel Hernandez, may very well have saved Gabby's life, and we will always be grateful for his quick actions.

We also pray for the other victims of this unspeakable act of violence: for Christina Taylor Green, Dorothy Morris, Phyllis Schneck, Dorwan Stoddard, and Judge John Roll. We pray for swift and fair justice for them as well.

As we stand here today, Democrats and Republicans, we are steadfast in our determination to keep representing our constituents. We will not let the tragic events in Tucson change the way we represent the people. We will instead look to Saturday's heroes as a reminder of the real strength that is America.

As Americans, we know that adversity, however tragic, makes us stronger and brings us closer together. That is what Gabby would want. We look forward to the day we welcome her back to this Chamber. God bless America and all her citizens hurting in the wake of this tragedy.

Madam Speaker, I too support the goal of ensuring that the brave men and women that acted as first responders at the World Trade Center attack are fairly treated and compensated. But I rise today to oppose the troubling provisions the majority has attached to pay for this bill.

This measure would impose a 2 percent tax on goods and services that are produced or provided in certain foreign countries from firms that are based in foreign countries that are not parties to certain treaties or international agreements. It sounds complicated. But some analysis suggests that a significant majority of this tax, at least two-thirds, if not more, would be raised by taxing contracts that support American troops stationed in the Afghan and Iraqi theaters. Even more incredible, this tax could apply to American companies that are providing goods and services to our troops through local subsidiaries. Levying additional taxes on companies that support American troops is both illogical and dangerous.

In addition, there is no reason that other countries wouldn't copy this tax and impose it on our U.S. companies that are competing to sell goods and services overseas. This would hurt our U.S. economic recovery efforts and efforts to boost U.S. sales abroad and create American jobs here at home. Moreover, I have real concerns that this excise tax could be subject to legal challenge at the World Trade Organization and may be inconsistent with our G-20 commitments to avoid imposing new protectionist measures.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote because of these provisions. Strangely, the proposed procurement tax doesn't include any of the exceptions included in our standard Buy America legislation, such as non-availability, unreasonable cost and inconsistency with the public interest. As a result, the bill would mandate a tax on the procurement of goods from a foreign producer even when U.S. goods aren't available.

In addition to this new tax, the bill would extend a tax on companies that have more than half their employees on certain specialized visas to work here in the United States. This tax raises independent concerns under our international obligations.

Finally, I would like to have printed in the Record a letter from 10 key business associations, including the Emergency Committee for American Trade and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that also oppose the use of these pay-for provisions.

December 21, 2010.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Republican Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Republican Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leaders Reid, Boehner, and

McConnell: We are writing to urge you to remove from the

proposed amended version of H.R. 847 the Title III revenue

raisers related to international government procurement.

First, its purported revenue raising benefits are highly

questionable. Second, there is a high risk that it will

undermine the international competitiveness of American

companies and American workers.

Title III would impose an excise tax on companies that are

from foreign countries which are not members of the World

Trade Organization (WTO) Government Procurement Agreement

(GPA) or similar procurement arrangements ostensibly for the

purpose of helping finance health benefits for the valiant 9/

11 first responders. In reality, the U.S. federal government

is already prohibited from procuring from such countries,

except under very limited conditions--when the good or

service is not available in the United States or would cost

an unreasonable amount or if the procurement is required for

the national interest. Moreover, the amount of such

procurement is generally regarded as relatively small

compared to U.S. sales into the procurement markets of these

countries.

The procurement portions of this legislation would

undermine U.S. efforts to succeed in the international

economy by both inviting non-GPA countries to take reciprocal

action against U.S. companies seeking to participate in their

procurement markets and by opening the United States to

retaliation for violating its WTO obligations. While U.S.

companies certainly face significant and discriminatory

procurement barriers in China, India, Brazil and other

countries that are not part of the WTO procurement agreement,

U.S. companies are still selling more into those government

procurement markets than the United States is purchasing from

those countries. As a result, there would more than likely be

net loss for U.S. exports, U.S. companies and U.S. jobs if

this provision became a model for foreign governments.

Furthermore, the imposition of this discriminatory tax on

foreign companies may also violate U.S. international

commitments if implemented. If found to be contrary to U.S.

WTO commitments, other countries could end up being

authorized to retaliate directly against U.S. exports,

further undermining U.S. opportunities overseas.

For all of these reasons, we strongly urge you to remove

the Title III procurement provisions from this legislation.

Respectfully,

American Association of Exporters and Importers (AAEI);

Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM);

Business Roundtable;

Emergency Committee for American Trade (ECAT);

National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC);

National Retail Federation (NRF);

Organization for International Investment (OFII);

TechAmerica;

United States Council for International Business (USCIB);

U.S. Chamber of Commerce;

U.S.-China Business Council.

Mr. Chair, I rise to revise my remarks regarding the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010.

I request the record reflect that Ms. Tammy Fisher is from West Texas, not East Texas.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the late Clarke Wardlaw McCants, Jr., of Columbia, South Carolina, who passed away on December 3 of this year. Clarke Wardlaw McCants, Jr., was a brilliant legal mind. Growing up in Columbia in the 1930s, he distinguished himself among his peers as a fine attorney and was recognized by The Best Lawyers in America in its Trusts

and Estates Section. An active member of the American Bar Association, he even served as the Editor of the Association's Journal of Real Property and Probate Trust Law.

Not just an outstanding lawyer, Clarke McCants was a kind man who raised a fine family that he took great pride in. He is survived by his wife of 54 years, Anne Lucius McCants and many loving children and grandchildren. It is important that the people of our nation step forward to serve their communities and give back to their country. This was not lost on Clarke McCants who gave generously of his time to his community.

Educated at the University of South Carolina as both an undergraduate and a law school student, he was a very active participant in the student government and many various extra curricular programs on campus such as Omicron Delta Kappa, President of Pi Kappa Alpha, and the debate team.

Between his undergraduate and law school education, Mr. McCants served us all in the United States Army Air Corps as a flight radio operator. His service in World War II earned him one Bronze Star. We are thankful for his service and we can all learn from the life experiences of Clarke Wardlaw McCants, Jr.

In closing, I just wanted to take a moment to share my condolences to the family of Clarke Wardlaw McCants, Jr. The entire staff and I are sorry for your loss and the pain this has caused you and your family.

Madam Chair, a gun is pointed at the head of our taxpayers, and it will go off January 1 unless Congress acts.

If we let that gun go off, it is going to hurt families who are struggling to make ends meet, it is going to hurt small businesses trying to survive this recession, it is going to hurt seniors, almost tripling the taxes on the dividends that they need to live month to month and day to day. It is going to hurt businesses trying to track capital. And it is going to revive the death tax, an immoral tax where you work your whole life to build up your nest egg, your small business, your family-owned farm, and when you die, Uncle Sam swoops in and takes more than half of everything you have earned. All that happens if Congress refuses to act.

Some are here today saying, no, let's not change that death tax. Let's raise that death tax.

Last night on my Facebook page, I got a posting from Tammy Fisher of East Texas. Her family has had to sell 6,000 acres of their timber land to pay the death tax. They held that land for 100 years.

Clarence Leaveritt of Texas is a rancher. His grandmother died. They had to take out a loan from the bank to pay the death tax. They are still paying on it. His father passed away recently, and they had to take out a second loan. Today he is paying two loans to Uncle Sam and can barely keep his ranch. And last night, we heard Democrats say, Those people are stingy and cheap, and haven't worked a day in their life.

All that death tax comes back January 1 if we don't act. And I'll tell you what, we have some very good friends of mine who say, ``Look, just let that gun go off because we can get a better deal later.'' Well, I am conservative and I am skeptical, and I am not raising taxes for anyone for any period, period.

I don't like the spending in this bill, and I offered an amendment, along with other conservatives, to cut $152 billion from this bill to cover all the costs. We couldn't get a vote on that. We are voting on a lot of things tonight, but not a straight up-or-down vote on trimming government.

We didn't get that vote, but I can tell you, on the spending cuts, this isn't the end of that discussion; it is the beginning. When we have a new Republican majority, I'm going to take that gun down from our taxpayers' head. I'm going to give them a chance to keep their own money, get this economy going, and keep fighting for permanent tax relief and a permanent death tax repeal.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) who has been a leader on lowering taxes, fighting the expansion of government, and expanding liberty.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Yielding myself 30 seconds, I would point out, our Democrat friends have run the first and second highest deficits in American history the last 2 years. They have raised taxes this session $625 billion, and guess how much went to reduce the deficit? Not one dime. In fact, all that money was sent in twice. No one seriously believes Democrats will use tax increases to lower the debt, but to expand and grow this government.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to join others in thanking Chairman Tanner, chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, for his leadership and service to our country and our economy through the years. He will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, our economy is struggling, and this Congress hasn't done enough to help promote the job creation we so desperately need. Congress needs a new playbook, and this legislation can be the first new play we run. The bipartisan legislation extends the Generalized System of Preferences and the Andean Trade Preferences Act and renews and establishes certain miscellaneous tariff reductions. In doing so, this bill lowers taxes on the products that American manufacturers need to be more competitive.

More competitive U.S. manufacturers means more jobs for American workers. America's farmers will benefit from this legislation as well, because it will help hold down the cost of fertilizers and pesticides. More importantly, American families will benefit from this legislation. In fact, American families will see double benefits. Not only will it help promote job creation, it will lower costs for consumers. At a time when so many families are struggling to get by, lower taxes on these products can help American families make ends meet.

Expert analysis has demonstrated how these provisions will support American jobs. For example, the miscellaneous tariffs legislation could support as many as 90,000 U.S. jobs. The Preferences program has been found to support 682,000 jobs and lower costs for consumers by $273 million. In today's difficult economic times, these are clearly policies the Congress should support.

Additionally, the extension of the ATPA program will provide critical support for our strongest ally in South America, Colombia. Right now, Colombia is suffering from terrible flooding and has declared a state of emergency. This natural disaster has badly damaged the Colombian economy, and Colombians cannot afford even a temporary lapse of this program.

I share the frustration of many of my colleagues that Congress has not taken up the U.S.-Colombia trade agreement, which would remove barriers to American sales to Colombia. America's farmers and ranchers are already losing exports as other countries implement trade agreements with Colombia ahead of us and gain a competitive advantage, and that's why this agreement has bipartisan support.

I urge supporters on both sides of the aisle to ensure that the ATPA program does not lapse so we can support our allies in Colombia while we continue our efforts to bring the trade agreement to the floor of Congress for a successful vote.

Also, this legislation continues to authorize the 2009 law updating and approving the Trade Adjustment Assistance program in various respects. Such improvements included allowing better and more successful training options to trade-impacted workers and providing trade adjustment benefits to service workers, given the importance of the service sector in America's economy. The 2009 law also helps ensure TAA program accountability and results by requiring data on the program's performance and its worker outcome. This will enable us to measure how the program is effective and where improvements are needed.

Significantly, this bill prevents the U.S. Department of Labor from forcing Texas and 26 other States to use only so-called State ``merit'' employees to provide Trade Adjustment Assistance-funded services. This Federal mandate went against the wishes of Congress and has unnecessarily distracted States from efficiently providing TAA services to trade-impacted workers. The bill delays the ill-advised Labor Department rule for the next year and a half, helping to ensure that the congressional intent behind the 2009 bipartisan TAA law is respected and that each State may continue to decide how best to provide high-quality TAA services to trade-impacted workers to get them retrained and back to work.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Camp for working so hard to bring this legislation to the floor. This can be the first play out of a new bipartisan playbook that promotes trade as a means to grow the economy and create jobs. The playbook should also include seeking congressional passage of the three pending trade agreements in the first half of next year: a high-standard Trans- Pacific Partnership agreement by the U.S.-hosted APEC leaders' summit next November, an ambitious outcome to the WTO Doha talks next year, and other trade-opening initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) who has led the Trade Subcommittee in past years.