Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from Texas very much, and I want to thank the gentleman for the tremendous leadership that you've given us in the area of trade, trade which is so crucially important to our Nation, to our ability to create jobs, to our economic well-being here in our Nation.

As Chairman Brady mentioned, I am very blessed to represent one of the richest agricultural areas in the world, an area in the northern Sacramento valley of California just north of Sacramento. In our area, we are the second-largest rice producing district in the Nation. We're also one of the top producers of specialty crops: peaches, walnuts, almonds, dried plums, and prunes are some of our major commodities.

And the fact is that we cannot, both in California and in our Nation, nearly consume the amount of products that we grow. We are dependent on being able to export. But our challenge--and the example I'm giving with my district is really true in every area across our Nation; it's true in manufacturing and it's true in everything we do--is that as one of the top trading nations in the world historically, the United States, we are dependent on being able to trade. Ninety-five percent of the world's markets lie outside of the United States.

Now, what are the challenges that we have, and why are these trade agreements, these three trade agreements with Panama, Colombia and South Korea, so very important to not only my area of California but to the entire Nation? The reason is that we have challenges in getting into other countries' markets. We have very little, very low barriers coming into our markets.

Other countries can trade with us almost barrier-free, but that is not the case with our products going to other countries. Other countries--virtually all of them--are very protective. They have very high tariffs. So therefore what is taking place when we sit down with these nations and bargain and come up with these trade agreements is an opportunity of lowering their barriers so that the district in my area where we can be able to export to them rice, peaches, walnuts, almonds, dairy products, and, again, our manufacturing goods, without these high barriers and be able to get access to those markets. So it's very important that we do this.

What happens when we don't move forward? Well, we can see it. I was in Panama just this last year. Panama now is doubling the size of the Panama Canal. They're going to need construction equipment. Now, where are they going to purchase this construction equipment? Well, they could be purchasing it from the United States. But guess what? Canada was successful in negotiating a trade agreement with Panama before we've had ours signed. Therefore, they have lower rates, lower barriers on getting their equipment into Panama. So Panama there has had a big advantage of buying from Canada, sales that would have come from the United States.

We can use these same examples with Colombia, the same example with South Korea who has negotiated with the EU, a major trading competitor with us. Therefore, we lose out in jobs, and we lose out in this market share. It is really a lose/lose for the United States.

I want to commend the President. We wish he would have sent these three agreements to us sooner. I'm grateful that he's sending them to us now. It's very important that we pass it. What we have seen is that the nonpartisan U.S. International Trade Commission has estimated that by signing these three trade agreements we can increase 250,000 new jobs to the United States--250,000 new jobs. That's without any stimulus, without any taxpayer money going into it. It is jobs for people who are unemployed today that can be employed, and it will increase at least $13 billion in trade.

So I want to urge our Congress, I want to urge the House and I want to urge the Senate to vote for these, pass it, let's get going on these trades. Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your leadership.

Madam Speaker, the 3 percent withholding provision, which will come into effect if Congress does not act, essentially forces businesses that have contracts with the government to forgo 3 percent of their payments as a downpayment on their tax bill. This represents yet another burden on our Nation's small businesses and job creators, the lifeblood of our economy.

As a small businessman, I know firsthand about the negative impact of burdensome taxes and cumbersome regulations. Many small businesses that contract with the government operate on very slim profit margins, so a 3 percent tax would create serious cash flow problems for them at a time when so many are struggling. Aside from that, this provision will actually cost the government money. Federal, State, and local governments are already facing unprecedented deficits, and yet agencies will have to create new collection systems and may face higher costs for goods and services if this is not repealed. The Department of Defense has said that for the DOD alone, the provision will cost $17 billion to implement. Madam Speaker, that is $7 billion more than the total revenue the tax is expected to raise. In another example of Washington math, the provision will force the government to spend more money and end up eliminating jobs and hurting small businesses.

Congress can certainly do better. We must do better. Twenty million Americans are out of work, and our small businesses must have the certainty they need to create more jobs. We cannot punish law-abiding businesses because a few contractors do not pay their taxes. Instead, the government should stop awarding government contracts to businesses that do not pay. To that point, the OMB and the Treasury Department have announced several initiatives to prevent contracts from going to companies that are delinquent on their taxes.

Madam Speaker, we're looking for something we can do right now to help job creation in America. Well, this is it. Repealing the 3 percent withholding provision will provide a significant benefit to small businesses just by getting Washington out of their way. If we don't repeal it, we will put small businesses, jobs across America, and our efforts at economic recovery at greater risk. It's time to get this harmful job-killing provision off the books forever.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 703, I inadvertently voted ``no'' when I intended to vote ``yes.''

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 699, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, we must act now to enact critical spending reforms. While the White House has refused to offer a plan, the Budget Control Act would accomplish this goal.

Will it solve all of our economic problems? No. But instead of discussing how much more Washington will spend, we're now talking about reducing our spending and how to live within our means, just like all Americans must do. For example, the Budget Control Act would cut nearly $1 trillion in spending over the next 10 years, establish firm spending caps, and require the Senate to vote on a balanced budget amendment.

I urge the Senate and President Obama to stop playing politics and support this bill.

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. 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.

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

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

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. 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. 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. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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.

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).

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. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Herger

Amendment No. 177: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

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.