Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself an additional 10 seconds to say we simply sweep under the rug $410 billion in spending, a $1 trillion stimulus, a new cap-and-tax system, pass this facade, and then a brand new $1 trillion health care bill. This is a bitter pill to swallow for the American taxpayer, and we shouldn't swallow it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Let me simply say I misspoke earlier when I had said that a few Democrats voted for the Budget Control Act. I was wrong. No Democrats voted for the Budget Control Act when we had it here on the floor. Not a single Democrat voted in 2004 when we had the opportunity to pass real budget reform. Unfortunately, some members of my party at the time voted ``no'' as well, and that's why it didn't pass. Mr. Speaker, this is a fiscal facade. Nothing can change the fact that what this bill does is it basically is a situation where we commit all the fiscal crimes, then we outlaw them after they've been committed.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the senior member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Garrett from New Jersey.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains between the two sides?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Yielding myself 10 seconds, Mr. Speaker, I will simply say that the majority just passed a budget resolution under the current PAYGO regime that doubles the national debt in 5\1/2\ years and triples it in 10\1/2\ years. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to simply comment on the last speaker's points. He is right in saying the last majority did spend too much money. A number of us criticized that. A number of us, Mr. Hensarling and I in particular, came to the floor with budget enforcement legislation. A minority of the majority at the time voted against it, and all but a few in the then-minority voted against it, supplied the votes to say ``no'' to any kind of budget enforcement. But more to the point, spending did grow by too much in the prior 8 years. But look at it now, Mr. Speaker. If you thought spending was fast then, holy cow, it is really fast now. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. McHenry.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Jordan.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to myself. Mr. Speaker, I wish the Budget Committee had an opportunity to mark up this bill; however, the decision was made to bypass the Budget Committee and go straight to the floor. This bill is not a simple extension of current law. It bypasses the deliberate and transparent process, and we are rushing legislation to the floor. It's an ongoing trend of a disturbing trend, which is write legislation in the leadership offices, rush it to floor, ram it through Congress without legislators legislating. We have one of the most talented chairmen of the Budget Committee who knows more than anybody else how these laws work, Mr. Spratt. It should have gone through his committee. Unfortunately, written in leadership, rushed to the floor, out it goes. That is a disturbing trend with how this Congress is working. But let me talk about the need for fiscal restraint and fiscal discipline. We concur, we agree that we have got to do some things to get our fiscal house in order. We need to equip Congress with more and better tools to get this budget under control. Unfortunately, this isn't the tool. This tool does not work. Let's look at PAYGO's track record thus far. Since PAYGO was instituted as a rule here, the budget deficit under the last Republican budget was $161 billion. The budget today, the deficit is at $1.8 trillion, more than a tenfold increase. Let me show you how much spending last year in increases were subject to PAYGO for this year's spending. Two percent. Two percent of the spending that has gone out the door this year was subject to PAYGO, 98 percent was not. That's $870 billion of new spending not subject to PAYGO. Since the majority gave us this PAYGO rule, look at what has happened to deficits. $161 billion up to $1.8 trillion, deficits for as far as the eye can see never going below $600 billion, and in 10 years, above a trillion dollars. PAYGO does absolutely nothing to arrest that development, to address that. More to the point, Mr. Speaker, PAYGO exempts, already, 40 percent of the budget, forty percent. All of the money the Federal Government spends on government agencies, and all that discretionary spending isn't even touched by PAYGO. More to the point, Mr. Speaker, is that all of those unfunded liabilities we have, according to the General Accountability Office, $62 trillion of unfunded liabilities are already out there, due, promises made to taxpayers that the government right now doesn't have funded, to Medicare, to Medicaid, to Social Security. A mountain of debt is before us. And what does PAYGO do to address it? Absolutely nothing. PAYGO does nothing whatsoever to address the runaway entitlement problems we have today. It simply says if we're going to build new programs, new nondiscretionary, mandatory entitlement programs, then, and only then, should we pay for it. We know the track record of something like this. Without spending caps, without reform to go after existing spending programs, this simply results in raising taxes. So we believe that this is more or less a machine to raise taxes to pay for new and more costly government programs. It does nothing to attack the fact that we have trillions upon trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities right now. It does nothing to attack the fact that just this year alone, discretionary spending is going up 8 percent, 11 percent for domestic discretionary spending. It ignores all of those things. It's really kind of like buying a fire extinguisher after your house has burned down. Congress is going to commit all of these fiscal crimes only to put PAYGO in place after they've been committed. So, Mr. Speaker, this bill, as well intended as it may be, is not the solution. There are better ideas. And I only wished that we could have gone through the Budget Committee and collaborated in making this bill better. With that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute and express my gratitude for the life of Paul M. Weyrich, a stalwart leader in the conservative movement. More importantly, Paul Weyrich was a man of true character and one who is well-respected both in Washington and throughout the country. Born in the Belle City of Racine, Wisconsin to Ignatius and Virginia Weyrich, Paul first became interested in politics during high school-- eventually joining the Racine County Young Republicans and taking an interest in Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign. Mr. Weyrich moved to Washington in 1966, taking a job as press secretary to Senator Gordon L. Allot of Colorado and later Carl T. Curtis, of Nebraska. Dedicated to the promotion of conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, and a strong national defense, Paul became frustrated by the lack of strong statistical research available to combat the growing anti-business tax and regulate liberals in Washington. To combat them, he sought to establish an effective and reasoned conservative voice in American public policy. Today, the Heritage Foundation is one of the largest--and certainly the most prominent--conservative think tanks in the world. Not content, however, with only protecting the family wallet and local business from the sticky fingers of liberal politicians, Paul also wanted to defend traditional family values and religious freedom. His vision led to the creation of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, Christian Voice and the Moral Majority to rally the American public to the defense of traditional Judeo-Christian values. A true visionary in outreach efforts and utilizing technology, Paul launched National Empowerment Television, a cable network designed to mobilize the religious right. Mr. Weyrich was truly one of the first conservatives to put emphasis on using the power of citizen initiatives. The efforts of his vision were felt worldwide. From 1989 to 1996, Mr. Weyrich served as President of the Kreible Institute of the Free Congress Foundation, which was founded to train and support democracy movements in the states comprising the Former Soviet Empire. Today, millions experience the taste of freedom due in large part to his efforts. Ronald Reagan said, ``There are no constraints on the human mind, no walls around the human spirit, no barriers to our progress except those we ourselves erect.'' Paul Weyrich did not believe in constraints or barriers. He was a man of the possible, a man of great passion and vision, who truly made a difference in the lives of the individual--fighting tirelessly for what he believed. His tenacity, perseverance, and ideas have inspired many to become involved in the political process, here at home and abroad. The legacy he leaves is the belief that all have a stake and the ability to change things. . . that the true dynamic of political participation stems from citizen coalitions, not the rulings of elites. And that our principles can be successfully defended by those who live them regardless of the machinations of the left. For that he is owed much gratitude. Virginia and Ignatius can be proud; their son made the most of the talents entrusted him. I wish to express my sincere gratitude to a fellow patriot, Paul Weyrich, for his significant contributions to the conservative movement and for promoting traditional values and a democratic vision for the world. I also wish to express my profound sorrow of his passing, and my condolences to his family, friends and colleagues.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 602, 603, and 604, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I propose that we make August America Right to Know month. That means Americans have a right to know what this Congress is doing in proposals that change their lives, and what I'm talking about is the health care legislation. Just a couple of days ago, we marked up this legislation in the Ways and Means Committee, about a thousand pages, and it came to us 3 minutes before midnight the day prior to us marking it up. We had an amendment in the committee that said, If we're going to impose this new health care system on the American people, Members of Congress, themselves, should be put into this system. What happened to that amendment? It went down by a party-line vote. Republicans said ``yes''; Democrats, except for Mr. Davis of Alabama, said ``no.'' We also said let's recognize the fact that we're taxing people, a lot of taxes on people earning less than $250,000. That violates the pledge people believed they had in the last election. What was the vote? The Republicans said, no, let's not tax people earning less than $250,000; the Democrats said, yes, we will continue to tax those people, violating this pledge, this promise the American people thought that they had on Election Day. August ought to be the month where America gets to know what's going on.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair, after careful consideration of H.R. 3170, it is with great regret that I announce my opposition to this bill as a result of its careless disregard for human life. Historically, there has been a restriction on government-funded abortion in Washington, DC. Language known as the Dornan Amendment, which prohibited both federally and locally appropriated funds from being used to pay for abortions, has always been adopted in prior-year versions of H.R. 3170. However, in a break from this longstanding tradition, the majority chose instead to include language that does not prohibit local taxpayer funding for abortion services. In effect, Congress is breaking with history and allowing taxpayer funded abortions where they were previously prohibited. I was extremely disappointed that H.R. 3170 included this language, especially since it also contains provisions that I strongly support. For example, I applaud bipartisan efforts to include language protecting the state franchise rights of GM and Chrysler auto dealers. Over 3,000 of these small business owners will ultimately be left behind as a result of the restructuring plans supported by the Obama Administration and recently approved in hasty federal bankruptcy court proceedings. Given that the rights of these auto dealers were not fairly represented in GM and Chrysler's bankruptcy proceedings, I support providing some kind of legislative remedy to these stakeholders. Unfortunately, the Majority blocked consideration of an amendment that would have eliminated the language allowing taxpayer funding of abortion services in H.R. 3170 and allowing Members to vote for the bill on its merits. This cynical political move forced those of us opposed to taxpayer-funded abortions to vote against this bill, also implying opposition to helping our auto dealers. Let me be clear that my vote against this bill in no way implies my opposition to protecting the rights of the auto dealers left behind in GM and Chrysler's bankruptcy proceedings. In short, I really hoped to take this opportunity to support our nation's auto dealers. Because H.R. 3170 effectively legalized taxpayer-funded abortion services, I could not support it.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not about science, it's not about costs and benefits; it's about ideology. Because if you look at the costs and benefits, the goal of this bill is to reduce global warming by 2/10 of a degree over a hundred years, hit our economy with this massive tax increase on homeowners, on people buying gasoline, heating their homes, hit manufacturing at a time when our competitors will not do this. This bill will result in jobs leaving the Midwest and jobs leaving America and going to other countries. And for every 1 ton of greenhouse gases we reduce, what will China do? They'll increase greenhouse gases by 3 tons. And that means more dirty air. That means more greenhouse gases. What will the U.S. have achieved? They will have pushed production off our shores. Jobs will be lost. Prices will go up. And other countries will take those jobs and put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This unilateral big government, Big Brother bill is not good for the planet. It's not good for our economy. And it sure as heck is not good for the Midwest. And I encourage my colleagues not to vote ideology, vote your districts and your constituents.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 271 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I simply want to close by saying that the life of Jack Kemp is a life where they broke the mold. Ronald Reagan motivated me; Jack Kemp inspired me. May God bless Jack Kemp and the memory and the works of this fine man, and may He bless his family. I'd like to pay tribute a great American--my friend and my personal mentor--Jack Kemp. As a 23-year-old kid, Jack took a chance on me, asking me to serve as his staff economic analyst at a new think tank, Empower America. As his aide and speechwriter, I learned not only how he articulated his vision, but more fundamentally the philosophical underpinnings and universal power of this vision. Jack is the reason I ran for Congress. I was motivated by Ronald Reagan, but inspired by Jack Kemp. He saw something in me that I didn't even know existed. He taught me how to approach people with an infectious optimism, and reminds us all that there is nothing more uplifting than the idea of America. I would consider myself blessed to have a mere thimble full of his abilities and vision. Jack Kemp had a transforming impact on the economic landscape of America. True as that is, his impact on our nation's political landscape may be greater, though not in a partisan or narrowly political sense. I mean in the way America understands itself and in the way we understand the great purposes of our system of self- government. Kemp taught himself by reading the economic classics beginning with Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, but he also read and studied the Declaration of Independence, both as it happens, were, published in 1776, year one of America's independence. Kemp mastered . . . and spelled out for us . . . the great insight that economic freedom and political freedom are intertwined and integrated parts of the order of human freedom. He reminded us that families, faith, and education--not government--are the true sources of the qualities of character without which there can be neither economic nor political freedom. Jack was not that interested in details and fine print, even of the policies he promoted. Nor were his proposals mere short-term tinkering. Whether he was advancing his 30 percent across the board income tax strategy, or his enterprise zones, or lowering regulatory barriers to growth and homeownership, he was never just looking for ways to add a point or two to the GDP. What Jack promoted was America itself . . . the ``American idea'' which in the 1970s had fallen on hard times. The ``American idea'' needed an ``American Renaissance'' and he was just the man to inspire that rebirth. The driving passion of Jack's life was to bring every person to full participation in a society of opportunity and freedom, especially the poor and minorities who could not quite reach up to the first rung on that opportunity ladder. You might say that Jack's greatest indignation was reserved for programs and policies, intended or not, that cut away the bottom rungs on the ladder and left the poor in despair of improving their lives. Jack's way to the boundless opportunities of the future led him through the past, to the American Revolution and the Civil War. The American statesmen who inspired him most were Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. He loved Mr. Jefferson particularly for the immortal words he carved into the Declaration of Independence--that by the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, all men are created equal in their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. ``All men'' meant all human beings, Jack used to say, not just males or whites or Anglo-Saxons or people from some specific background. The American idea, in other words, is freedom for all human beings everywhere in the world for all time to come. The more Kemp studied Lincoln's statecraft, the more he embraced Lincoln's vision. The Great Emancipator's titanic struggle against the abomination of race-based slavery, of course, was tethered to the golden words of Jefferson's Declaration. ``All honor to Jefferson,'' wrote Lincoln, ``to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression.'' Lincoln's statecraft was intended to open the doors to citizenship, voting rights, work and ownership opportunities to the enslaved blacks just as much as anyone else. Kemp saw that Lincoln's struggle against black slavery was part and parcel of Lincoln's project to extend the benefits of self-government and free markets to all. Jack could quote passage after passage from Lincoln's speeches and writings to illustrate that the opposite of slavery--where one person owns another person--is freedom and equal opportunity--where every human being has the right to own and acquire property. One of the most succinct Lincoln quotes that epitomized Kemp's perspective was from a speech Lincoln gave on his way to the White House: I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich [Lincoln said]; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else. When one starts poor, as most do in the race of life, free society is such that he knows he can better his condition; he knows that there is no fixed condition of labor . . . I want every man to have the chance . . . and I believe a black man is entitled to it--in which he can better his condition, [and look forward with hope]. Kemp and Lincoln had the same principal concern: to open up a path for those at the bottom to rise as high as their abilities and imagination could take them. Jack never lost a night's sleep worrying about taxing the rich too much. He lost sleep over programs that foreclose opportunity by weakening incentives for the poor to become rich. With due respect, no statesman of the last generation has made the spirit of Lincoln so much his own as Jack Kemp. Rare was the Kemp speech or essay that did not sooner or later recur to Lincoln for insights on democracy, whether in domestic or foreign policy. In his effort to grow in his understanding of Lincoln, Jack met and corresponded with the best Lincoln scholars in America; occasionally he challenged them. He was pleased by the invitations to join Lincoln historical associations and was professionally recognized for his knowledge and interest. So vital was Lincoln's vision of equality and opportunity that Jack would debate and respond to those who saw Lincoln as a proponent of ever growing federal programs--for example, former New York Governor Mario Cuomo who co-edited a book of Lincoln speeches. Even so, Kemp had a good word for anyone, left or right, who recognized Lincoln's greatness, importance to the meaning of America, and relevance for the economic and political issues of our time. It was altogether fitting and proper that Jack's last syndicated column published in February was titled ``Honoring Lincoln,'' in celebrating the bicentennial of the birth of our greatest President. It is true that Jack was a fighter for his vision of the American idea, but Lincoln deepened Jack's natural inclination to rise above party to the love of country. Last November, across the political divide, Kemp wrote a touching letter to his 17 grandchildren rejoicing in the transformation of America that allowed an African-American to win the Presidency. But that wasn't all. Jack noted that Barack Obama, like himself, often referred to his Illinois predecessor, Abraham Lincoln. It was quintessential Kemp to praise Obama generously even as he reiterated his personal vision of America: When President-elect Obama quoted Abraham Lincoln on the night of his election [Kemp wrote], he was acknowledging the transcendent qualities of vision and leadership that are always present, but often overlooked and neglected by pettiness, partisanship and petulance. . . . President-elect Obama's honoring of Lincoln in many of his speeches reminds us of how vital it is to elevate these ideas and ideals to our nation's consciousness and inculcate his principles at a time of such great challenges and even greater opportunities. Kemp himself contested for the Presidency and like a number of other excellent statesmen in the past who were driven by ideas, he did not reach that goal. But I believe with all my heart that through his ideas and his passion, his unconventional thinking and dedication to the principles of equality, freedom, and opportunity, Kemp made us a better people and our country a nobler place.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to pay tribute to a great American, my friend and my personal mentor, Jack Kemp. As a 23-year-old kid, Jack Kemp took a chance on me and had me come and serve as his personal economic policy analyst in a new thing he was starting called Empower America. As his aid and his speechwriter, I learned not only how he articulated his vision, but, more importantly, the philosophical underpinnings of this vision and the universal power of Jack Kemp's vision. You see, Jack is the reason I ran for Congress. He saw something in me that I didn't even know was in me. He taught me how to approach people with that sort of infectious optimism that I strive for, and he reminds us that there is nothing more than uplifting the idea of America that we champion. I would consider myself blessed to have a mere thimbleful of his abilities and vision. Jack Kemp had a transforming impact on the economic landscape of America. And, as true as that is, his impact on our Nation's political landscape may be even greater, though not in a partisan or a very narrow political sense. I mean in the way that America understands itself, in the way that we understood the great purpose of our system of self-government. Jack Kemp was a self-taught man. He read the economic classics, beginning with Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. He also read and studied the Declaration of Independence. Both, as it happens, were published in 1776, year 1 of our country's independence. He mastered and spelled out for us the great insight that economic freedom and political freedom are intertwined in integrated parts of the order of human freedom. He reminded us that families, faith, and education, not government, are the true sources of the qualities of character without which there can be neither economic nor political freedom. Jack wasn't interested in the details and the fine print or even the micromanaging policies that he promoted, nor were his policies merely short-term tinkering. Whether he was advancing his 30 percent across- the-board income tax or his enterprise zones, he was never looking for just ways to add up points to gross domestic product. What he promoted was America itself, the American idea, which, in the 1970s, had fallen on hard times. The American idea needed an American renaissance, and he was just the man to inspire that rebirth. Two great leaders that Jack always talked about were Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. He was a fine student of those two men.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Speaker, this is a big moment. This is a big moment in our history that the historians will look back to as a key pivot in American history and the American experiment and the American project. What this budget does not do is it does not practice Clinton economics. It does not practice the kind of economics we have had in this country that gave us the longest peacetime expansion, the kind of economics that gave us unprecedented prosperity. Bill Clinton cut tax rates and controlled spending in a bipartisan budget agreement in 1997 which paved the way for the surpluses that later occurred, which were projected, that went away. It was bipartisan. This is different. This is new. This budget takes a look at those mistakes made in the past that we are hearing all these criticisms of, too much spending, too much debt, and what does it do? It adds to it. Instead of controlling spending, as the critics have said we should have done, this has spending go out of control. Instead of controlling the debt, as the critics say should have occurred, debt goes out of control. I urge a rejection of this budget. Let's start over again and save this country and move us down the path of fiscal discipline, not fiscal recklessness. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield our final minute to our distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds to say that we are raising taxes, the most we have ever done. I know the chairman will give us some convoluted explanation on how this is actually cutting taxes. Keeping taxes where they are on some tax policies is not cutting taxes; it's keeping taxes where they are. Making them go up means you're raising them to chase higher spending. The higher taxes in this bill never catch the higher spending; so we have a mountain of debt among the likes we have never seen before. That is why we have such a difference of opinion with this budget. That is why we offered a principled alternative to this budget, which is controlling spending, keeping taxes low, and getting our debt under control. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished House Conference chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Madam Speaker, I get a little bit of a sense of deja vu this morning. We've kind of been around this vote a while. But we got some new news this morning that's troubling news. The economy in the first quarter of this year has declined by 6.1 percent, 6.1 percent negative economic growth, the worst drop in our economy now since the mid 1970s. And if you look at the data, it shows you that the American consumer is more or less hanging in there. It's the investment from businesses that has dried up. It is business investment that's not occurring in this economy that's creating this great recession leading to all these job losses. So as we look at this budget, I think a few new points ought to be brought to light since we have been around this budget quite a bit, which is, number one, looking at the economic data underneath this budget. It shows you that the debt and deficits that are currently projected in this budget are going to go much higher. If you take a look at the economic assumptions that the Office of Management and Budget uses, they're a whole lot rosier than what's occurring. If you look at their inflation projections, which inflation just came in at 2.9 percent this quarter, they're a whole lot rosier, meaning put reality into the budget and the deficits and debts go even higher. We already see that the Congressional Budget Office is telling us, versus the President's budget numbers, were about $2.1 trillion deeper into deficits. Now with this new data, even more red ink. But worse yet, as I just described, the current bad economic numbers we got, business investment is down. That means businesses are not investing. So what does this budget do? It raises taxes on investment. It raises taxes on businesses. You've got to remember, Madam Speaker, that almost 70 percent of our jobs come from small businesses. More than half of those who pay those top tax rates are small businesses. It's those industrial companies that are in the business parks that ring the sides of our cities in Elkhorn and Janesville and Kenosha and Racine, Wisconsin. That's where most people get their jobs. So what does this bill do? It raises taxes on those small businesses. It actually raises their taxes such to the point where they pay a higher tax rate than the largest corporations in America. This budget also repeals tax deferral. Now, what does that mean? That means all of our big businesses that make things in America and sell them overseas, we're going to tax them twice and make our exports even less competitive. We're going to tax business investment. What does it do on capital gains and dividends, on the seed corn and seed capital that funds the innovations, that funds the entrepreneurial startups, that the small businesses go to to get their money to expand and invest and create jobs? It raises taxes on that as well. So we are raising taxes on the very things that give us business investment and give us jobs. We are raising taxes on the very things that make up our pensions, our 401(k)s, and our college savings plans. And we are raising these taxes $1.5 trillion a year in order to chase ever higher spending.