Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The current system we have is dysfunctional. It has games built into the system so that the House can do one thing; the other body, the Senate, but I am not supposed to say that word, can do another; and the President can do a third thing. What happens in the current budget system is we go into a stalemate and to get out of that stalemate at the end of the year, we end up spending more money than the budget ever planned on spending. What we simply want to do is to bring this budget up to the level of the law so that we are all on the same page at the beginning of the budget process so that we can enforce that budget because it is in law. The budgets we pass here are not really binding, they are guidelines. They are not legally protected. We cannot protect and enforce our budget if it does not rise to the level of the law. We cannot be on the same page at the beginning of the year, if we are not on the same page at the beginning of the year. That is why we are trying to pass this very common sense idea, so that we are all on the same page and so that this can be law and, therefore, our budgets can be enforced. I urge adoption of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, in this very negative bitter political year, we hear a lot of negative stories. I want to talk about something that is good that is happening in America, and that is jobs are coming back in our economy. If you take a look at what is happening in this economy, our U.S. economy is growing at the fastest rate it has grown in 20 years. We have added 1.4 million jobs in economy since last August alone. In my home State of Wisconsin, where we are so dependent on manufacturing jobs, we are seeing a great recovery in manufacturing. Over 3,000 jobs just last month alone in high paid manufacturing jobs, almost 12,000 jobs in total alone last month in the State of Wisconsin. So what is happening is the tax cuts that passed a year ago, the good economic policies that have been put in place, the seeds that were planted are bearing fruit and we are now on the road to an economic recovery. Yes, everyone who lost a job has not yet found one, but the good news is the fastest growth in 20 years, over a million jobs created within a year, we are on record pace to earn back and build back the jobs that we lost and that is good news for America.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, let us look at what this bill is all about. What we do when our companies go overseas to compete, to sell goods and services, to create jobs here at home and sell overseas, they pay two taxes. Our foreign competitor countries pay one tax. When an American company sells a good and service overseas, they pay the U.S. tax and the foreign country tax at the same time. When our foreign competitors compete against us, they pay one tax. We are double taxing American jobs and American operations overseas. So in replacing this current tax policy we have which goes to \1/2\ of 1 percent of American manufacturers, we are giving a tax rate reduction for all American manufacturing corporations on what they produce in America, and we are removing this double tax so when we operate overseas by selling goods and services overseas to create jobs here at home, we are not tying one hand behind our backs. We are pushing jobs overseas with the American Tax Code we have today, and this bill corrects that problem. This protects jobs, and this is a good bill that has to pass because we have to get rid of these tariffs. I urge adoption of this legislation.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. This does not give any extra waiver authority to the EPA that it does not already have. This bill does not do a lot of the things he mentioned. It does very few things. What the intent of this bill is, is to have a preapproved list of fuels by the EPA for areas to choose from that are clean fuels so that we consolidate the fuel blends we have in America. That is it. And then study and make sure we are doing it right. And if the study says there is another way to do it better, we will do that. That would be the fourth study we would have on this matter. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the majority whip and cosponsor of this legislation, for the purpose of closing.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. That was a very interesting speech. I do not think the speech really applied to the bill we have on the floor, though. I would first mention that this waiver authority is nothing different than the current waiver authority the EPA has. Last year when we had a pipeline break in Arizona when they could not get a lot of gasoline, the EPA waived certain parts of the Clean Air Act so they could get gas supplies to meet the demand that was occurring because they had a huge supply shock. Now, I would like to set this issue up in the following way. What this bill does is recognize the fact that we can have cheap gas and clean gas in America. The goal here is to improve the Clean Air Act, make it function better and make our gas more affordable while maintaining every ounce of environmental standards that we already have on the books. This bill will help make it easier to meet the Clean Air Act, but let me put this issue in perspective. When we started the Clean Air Act, we had a good idea. The idea in the Clean Air Act at the time was if your area has dirty air, you need to clean it up. One of the things you need to do is burn cleaner gasoline through your cars. A very good idea. The problem is when they wrote this law, they did not think of the fact that if they allow cities, counties, States to select their own kinds of gasoline, that they would cause this huge problem we have today. Here is the problem. Please, Madam Speaker, look at this chart. What this chart shows is the map of America. It looks like a piece of modern art. It shows all of the different blends of gasoline that are required to occur in the summer in America. There are 16 different base blends of gasoline which translate today into 45 different fuels in America. However, we have a pipeline and refinery infrastructure system in America that has not been upgraded since the 1970s. No new refineries have been built since 1976, and when we built that system we had one kind of gasoline flowing through America. Now because of the Clean Air Act, a very good law, but one that does not take into account this problem, when we go from winter-blend gasoline, which is basically conventional gas, to summer-blend gasoline, we move from one kind of gas to 45 different blends of gasoline required around America. When we have our refinery capacity running at 96 percent, any little hiccup in supply, any little refinery fire that has happened all across America, a problem with the pipeline breaking like in St. Louis or Arizona, we have huge supply shortages and giant price spikes. What is more is all of these different blends of gasoline, we can have four different blends by going from Green Bay, Wisconsin, to St. Louis, Missouri. In Green Bay, they may have conventional gas; in Kenosha, they may have reformulated gas. Springfield, Illinois, may have a low RVP conventional gas. East St. Louis may have 7.0 RVP. Across the river in West St. Louis, they may have 7.2 RVP. The problem is these gas lines are not fungible, even though in Detroit and Chicago and Milwaukee and St. Louis and Kansas City and Minneapolis we have the same environmental requirements. They are out of compliance with the Clean Air Act. They have the same requirements with respect to the fuel standards they have to achieve, but they all have different blends of gasoline, proprietary blends of gasoline. What we want to do is bring common sense to this system. What this legislation does is it simply says we are going to have now a preferred list of fuels that people can choose from, local governments can choose from when they select their new gasoline blends to come into compliance with the Clean Air Act. We are capping the amount of boutique fuels so we do not proliferate more blends, but especially now when we go to the new 8-hour ozone requirement and we now recognize the fact that we have 42 areas of America, as we see on this chart, which have 45 different fuel blends, we are adding 82 new areas of America this year that are going to be out of compliance with the Clean Air Act because of the new 8-hour ozone standard. As we add these new 82 areas, do we want to have that many more different kinds of fuel in America? No, we simply want to bring some common sense to the system so that when all these new areas of America have to come into compliance with the Clean Air Act, we want to give them guidance so they can pick from a list of preferred clean blends of fuel that are compliant with the Clean Air Act that are standard blends of fuel so we can standardize not only the kinds of fuels we use in America, but stabilize our supply of gasoline in America. Why does that matter? Because gas is priced like any other commodity. It is priced based upon its supply. If we can stabilize the supply of gas, we can stabilize the price of gasoline and bring down the price of gasoline. What the intent of this legislation is to do is to make sure in the short term if we have huge supply problems, a refinery fire or a pipeline break, we have the authority to meet those supply problems; but in the medium term and long term, make sure we standardize our blends of gasoline so we can comply with the Clean Air Act and have inexpensive, affordable, clean-burning gasoline. What I believe this bill will actually achieve at the end of the day will be less expensive and more clean gas around America, even in areas that do not have to have clean gasoline. I think this is going to help us clean up our air, and it is going to help us have affordable gasoline. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond. Madam Speaker, this is the same kind of waiver authority they already have under law. This is included in the Bush administration energy plan. This was in the Bush administration energy policy recommendations to solidify and consolidate boutique fuels. We have had numerous studies on this issue. A very comprehensive study was done on this issue by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2001, which recommended doing exactly this. We had another study by the National Association of Convenience Stores recommending doing exactly this. Plus, we have already had multiple sources of testimony from gasoline marketers, from gasoline wholesalers, all talking about the need to consolidate the fuel blends. So this has been done based upon studies; this is a policy endorsed by the Bush administration. This is a policy talked about, vetted, and had hearings on for 3 years now. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), a cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to share my heartfelt condolences with Nancy Reagan and the Reagan children. Our nation owes them a special debt of gratitude for their strength in caring for their husband and father over the past decade as he battled Alzheimer's disease and for everything they've done to uphold his dignity and legacy for our country. As we prepare to lay former U.S. President Ronald Reagan to rest, it's important that we reflect on his brave and principled leadership-- and the hope he gave to countless individuals in our country and around the world. Looking back at the footage of Reagan's speeches and other public appearances, one of his most striking qualities was his enduring optimism. At the time that he entered the White House, self-doubt and pessimism had practically paralyzed our nation and most Americans saw no end in sight to soaring inflation, economic stagnation and the Cold War. Though he had a realistic view of the challenges that faced the United States, Reagan believed in us. He knew that free individuals have immense potential for good, and he knew the strength of our American system of free enterprise and self-government. His ``can-do'' spirit infused our country and brought a renewed sense of hope and opportunity to those who had nearly forgotten what America stands for. Fundamentally, Ronald Reagan trusted us. He trusted that Americans know how to spend the money they earn better than the federal government does. He trusted that, once barriers to private enterprise and economic growth were lifted, American creativity and drive would bring our economy and jobs back. He trusted American resolve in defense of liberty. And he trusted people enough to speak plainly with them about his beliefs and intentions. President Reagan's words carried weight because we knew he meant what he said--and the Soviets and the rest of the world knew it too. He was not a poll-watcher. He was a man of conviction--a man with a clear philosophy that guided his actions. This philosophy was rooted in a love of freedom and a deep faith in God. Speaking to students at Moscow State University on May 31, 1988, Ronald Reagan said ``Democracy is less a system of government than it is a system to keep government limited, unintrusive: A system of constraints on power to keep politics and government secondary to the important things in life, the true sources of value found only in family and faith.'' Imagine what it must have been like for him to bring this message to the heart of an empire where government had for decades superceded individual rights. Reagan's commitment to actually winning the Cold War, his determination to secure peace through strength, and his recognition that communism is a bankrupt, immoral ideology were essential to ending the Soviet threat and liberating the Eastern bloc nations and their people. When you consider the countless individuals who owe their freedom in part to Ronald Reagan's leadership and the many Americans who today have close friends or family with whom they have reunited in areas formerly off-limits--who had been shut away behind the Iron Curtain-- you get a sense of why so many across the world feel a personal connection with Reagan. On top of all his achievements, beyond all that Reagan did to rejuvenate our economy, win the Cold War, and renew our country's sense of purpose and optimism, there was the man himself. He had great confidence in America's founding values as well as an excellent sense of humor. And he succeeded in raising the level of discourse in our political arena. People might have disagreed with him on policy decisions, and his opponents in Congress argued fiercely with him, but at the end of the day they respected one another. It was a time of greater civility in politics, and we should strive to recapture that. We look to Ronald Reagan's example as an inspiration today and express once more the thanks of a very grateful nation.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, this Memorial Day we honored the sacrifices that every generation of U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines has made to protect our country and ensure that the hope and light of liberty never dies. This includes the current generation of America's military men and women who are defending us right now, as we gather in peace and freedom. Our troops today are following in the proud tradition of those who have gone before them to defeat tyrants and oppressors and keep America secure and free. In doing so, they have taken on great risk, putting their lives on the line to accomplish their mission. In Wisconsin and throughout our nation we have lost some of our bravest young men and women in the ongoing operations to combat terrorism and help freedom take root in Iraq and Afghanistan. Among them, a soldier from the district I represent, Private First Class Sean Schneider, was killed in Iraq in March when a bomb hit his convoy. Sean grew up in Janesville, Wisconsin, and graduated from Craig High School--the same school I graduated from. Sean liked to hunt, canoe, and tinker with cars and motorcycles. His high school teachers talk about what a caring individual he was and how he was the kind of student you respected. At the same time, he was an independent young man who knew what he wanted to do with his life. Sean joined the Army in 2002 with a strong desire to serve and protect his country. In doing so, he made that incredible commitment that our military men and women and our veterans throughout history have made: he was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice and put his life in danger to preserve our rights and freedoms. It is because of Sean and people like him that our country remains free today. America owes Sean and all who have given their lives serving in our Armed Forces a tremendous debt that can never be repaid. We must commit to remembering forever their lives and valiant sacrifices. And we must be grateful for our veterans who have stood up, like Sean did, for our country and the cause of freedom. Our thoughts and prayers are with our fallen servicemen and women and their families. May God bless them and all Americans serving with honor today.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) for his leadership on this issue. It is really a great tribute to all the work that he has done. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we are talking about these days is, how do we stop pushing jobs overseas? One of the problems we have is, we are in the time of global competition, and our manufacturers and our small businesses are really struggling to compete in the global marketplace. One of the ways in which we push jobs overseas is by making it more expensive to do business in America and to hire people to build things in America is the cost of regulations. This bill, the Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements Act, helps make good on the promise that Congress is giving to the American people that we are going to reduce the cost of regulations. Getting the essential information on how the costs and benefits accumulate on our regulations is a critical component to our agenda to reduce the cost that our government imposes on businesses so they can be more competitive in the global marketplace so that we can keep jobs in America. This is about jobs. It is about common sense. I urge adoption of this bill.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to respond. There is a lot to respond to there, though. I do not know if I have enough time to respond to all of what my friend from Washington just said. I think that it would be good to have a little economic refresher course here for some of the Members of Congress. I just want to point out a couple of things. Number one, the soapbox derby resolution was brought by the minority whip from the other side. But, number two, I think the Member from Washington ignored a lot of good things we just did in the last week here in Congress. Today we have the association health plans bill on the floor, helping small businesses, individuals, pool together to buy their health insurance in collective nationwide buying pools to get down the cost of health insurance. Yesterday we passed the FSA rollover to help bring down the cost of health insurance and we passed medical liability reform to help bring down the cost of health insurance. So this Congress is obviously performing. I think he may have glossed over a lot of the accomplishments. In fact, we have 87 very important, substantive bills sitting over on the doorstep of the other body waiting for action because we have outproduced and outperformed the other body on legislation. One final point is the unemployment rate that we are experiencing in America today is lower than the average unemployment rate of the nineties, the eighties, and the seventies; 1.1 million jobs have been created, good jobs, not all good jobs but many good jobs since August. This economy is pulling out of the recession it had experienced a year ago. This economy is producing jobs. We still, yes, have a way to go; but the point of the story is when you take a look at the fact that just this year, in the last 10 months since last July, we have had lower tax rates in America. Because of that, we actually have more revenues coming into the Federal Government. But to make the point clear, last year where we had higher tax rates on the American taxpayer, we brought in less money to the Federal Government. This year with lower tax rates, where we have more economic activity, more people keeping what they earn and a lower tax rate, we are actually bringing in more revenue to the Federal Government. We believe the way to fixing our problems is jobs and by giving people a chance to upgrade their life-styles and get jobs in the economy, we will have more tax revenue, rather than increasing taxes and increasing spending. That is not our philosophy. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, on May 5, 2004, the House voted 333-89 to extend the exemption amounts for the AMT, to index them for inflation; and I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) voted for the AMT relief bill. We passed the bill, making sure that we can go study the problem and figure out how to comprehensively fix it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close. Well, where to begin? Well, we have seen a lot of revisionist history practiced on the floor today during this debate. I think it is important to look at what this country has faced in the last few years. What happened to this country? Well, in 2001 the President was sworn into office and we were going into a recession. What we found on September 11 of 2001 was that we were on the precipice of going into a recession. It looked inevitable that we were going to have a recession, but maybe we were going to pull out of it. But 9/11 put us into that recession. We went into a recession where our revenues to this country dive- bombed. But what happened after that? Then we found some people were crooked in the boardrooms of America, and we had corporate scandal after corporate scandal after corporate scandal. And what happened? We went deeper into recession and our revenues plummeted. Because we saw that Americans' faith in the corporations of America, because of the Enron scandal, the Global Crossing scandal, and the WorldCom scandal, shook the foundation of our enterprise system. What happened also at that time? Well, Mr. Speaker, we were engaged in war in response to 9/11. We had to spend more money because we had a war in Afghanistan, we had a Department of Homeland Security to try to make ourselves harder targets to hit, to play better defense in the war on terrorism. That costs money. The fundamental and first responsibility of the Federal Government is to protect the safety and security of the American people. In post 9/11 government, that means we had to spend more money on security. So, yes, spending went up. Spending went up, I would argue, for a very important reason. And, you know what? Revenues went down. They went down because we went into a recession, we got deeper into a recession with 9/11, and we got still lower revenues and a worse recession because of these corporate scandals. But the great story in all of this, Mr. Speaker, is the incredible resiliency of the American worker, of the American citizen, of the American economy. The American economy is rebounding from all of that. Most times in America you get hit with one of these calamities, a war, an act of terrorism, or a recession, but they happened all at the same time in this country. And what is so wonderful about this is how well we have responded to it. Now, yes, spending went up, the debt obviously went up, and revenues went down. But the good story in all of this, Mr. Speaker, is that in large part because of the tax cuts that passed, that helped ignite this economic recovery, and we are working and growing ourselves out of this. Now, we have many problems that clearly need solving. We are still involved in a war and we see that on other TV sets every day. We still have a lot of people who need work. But it is a wonderful thing that more than a million people found work since last August. It is even better that about 300,000 people found work last month. Mr. Speaker, we still have challenges, and that is why we are seeing what is coming to the floor this week, all of these pieces of legislation to try and get this economy back on its feet, to get people their jobs back. One of the things we are focusing on just this week and the next 7 weeks in the House of Representatives is to do things to make it so we are more competitive in the global economy. We look at what it takes to get jobs in this economy. How do we bring the lagging manufacturing sector back on its feet? When we look at the problems facing the competitiveness of the American company, we look at the problems facing the competitiveness of the American worker, taxes, number one; health care costs, number two; regulatory costs; litigation costs with lawsuits; and energy costs. What is this Congress doing? Well, we had a comprehensive energy policy brought through the House of Representatives to bring down the cost of energy and make us less dependent on foreign sources of energy; filibustered in the other body. Regulatory reform, we are bringing a whole week's worth of legislation down to the floor in a matter of days to work on reducing the cost of regulations. Tort reform, we have passed tort reform bill after tort reform bill after tort reform bill. Class action reform, medical liability reform, all being filibustered in the other body. What are we doing about taxes? This is an area where this Congress has produced because we have been able to get these bills passed through the other body and signed into law by the President. So we see this recovery under way. One of the areas where this recovery has really rebound is in small businesses. As I mentioned earlier, small businesses create 70 percent of the jobs we have in America. Small manufacturers in America today pay higher taxes than our competitors overseas, especially China and India. We have to make our small manufacturers more competitive. What this substitute does is it takes away the very policy that is igniting this economic recovery. It puts taxes on small businesses. More importantly, if we fail to pass this underlying legislation, it will put higher taxes on low-income workers. I mentioned earlier that over half of all taxpayers hit by the surtax in the Tanner substitute are small businesses. I misspoke. Seventy-five percent of all taxpayers hit by this surtax report small business income, sole proprietorships, partnerships, men and women in America who are putting their own capital at risk to start a small business, to hire people and bring them back to work. That is the engine of economic growth that is fueling this recovery. Why on Earth we want to hit these people, the creators of jobs in America, with a new high tax to try to pay for a temporary tax cut which we are making permanent in the base bill is beyond me. Now, it is important that Members note the differences in philosophy here. By raising taxes, as a vote against this bill will do, takes the pressure off the need to reduce spending. If we always go for the old answer of let us just raise taxes, let us allow taxes to go back up, raise taxes on small businesses, that will bring in more revenue to the government, possibly. Possibly. But what it for sure will do is take pressure off the Congress and our Federal Government to cut spending. We want to cut spending. I think the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) was right when he said we could have done a better job over the last 8 to 9 years in cutting spending. I very much agree with that. I think we can do a better job; but what is also important to say, which was left out, over these 8 or 9 years, in passing the spending bills we have passed in this Congress, they have always done so by defeating higher spending increases that have been proposed time after time from the other side of the aisle. So, Mr. Speaker, what this is about is ensuring the recovery continues, making sure that 23 million low-income Americans and 73 million taxpayers do not see a big tax increase next year. What this is about is making sure that the pressure is put on Congress in the right way, not raising taxes, but keeping taxes low and cutting spending. That is the emphasis that is placed in this bill. That is what we are voting for here. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' against the Tanner tax increase substitute and vote ``yes'' for the base bill so that 23 million low- income Americans can see this tax relief in reality for the rest of their lives and so that the rest can make sure they are not going to wake up next year with a big tax increase.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\3/4\ minutes to the esteemed gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), a high-ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just mention very briefly, the gentleman who just spoke is from California, and the taxpayers just in the State of California who are now only paying that 10 percent bracket, there are 2,605,960 taxpayers in the State of California alone who would experience a huge tax increase relative to their tax burden next year if this legislation is not passed. In fact, there are over 12 million taxpayers in California alone that would experience higher taxes next year if this does not pass. So each of us represents people who are struggling to make ends meet who are at the bottom rung of the economic ladder who are staying just afloat and paying taxes at that 10 percent bracket who are making $16,000 or less as a couple. Those are the people that we want to help, and we want them to get on the upper trajectory of prosperity. The last thing we want to do is hit them with a big tax increase. If we fail to pass this bill, that is exactly what will happen.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today the House can make the 10-percent bracket permanent for working Americans by passing this legislation, H.R. 4275. The 10-percent bracket was created in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. It has provided substantial tax relief for low-income workers by taxing the first $14,000 of married couples and $7,000 for singles at a 10-percent rate instead of a 15- percent rate. This tax relief was accelerated last year in last year's Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. H.R. 4275 would make this tax relief permanent. If Congress fails to act to pass this legislation, Americans will see their taxes increase starting next year. Without action, the size of the 10-percent bracket will automatically shrink next year, so that more income will be taxed at a higher rate. In fact, the 10-percent bracket will vanish altogether after the year 2010 unless we act today to make it permanent. If H.R. 4275 is not enacted, 73 million tax filers will see a tax increase starting next year. The effect will be particularly acute after 2010 when 123 million tax filers will see an average annual tax increase of $500. It is worth noting that more than 20 million of these returns are low-income taxpayers and families who have all of their income taxed at this lower 10 percent rate. The public deserves a solid, dependable Tax Code that provides incentives and lets working people keep their money for their own needs. The 10 percent bracket provides such an incentive, one we can and should make permanent by passing this legislation. Mr. Speaker, it is important that people know what taxes they are going to face in the future. By having all of these uncertainties in the Tax Code, not knowing whether you are going to be in the 10 percent bracket next year, the 15 tax percent bracket next year, it makes it difficult to budget for the future. We are talking about the taxpayers who can least afford to have a big tax increase going from 10 percent to 15 percent on their incomes next year, let alone not having the knowledge of knowing whether or not this is going to happen. It is very important, Mr. Speaker, that families know what lies ahead, that businesses know what lies ahead, and let us all remember that two-thirds of businesses in America file their taxes as if they were individuals, not as corporations, but as pass-through entities where they file on the individual rate. Making sure that small businesses, which produce 70 percent of the jobs we have in this country and low-income taxpayers know what lies ahead in the Tax Code is very important to make sure that we sustain the economic recovery we are now engaged in. Mr. Speaker, largely because of the tax cuts that this bill enacted, largely because of the full implementation of the tax rate reductions that occurred just this last July, our economy has taken off. Just since last August, this economy, by the most conservative estimate, has produced 1.1 million jobs. In fact, since January 1 of this year, this economy, by this most conservative payroll estimate, has produced 881,000 jobs. This is no longer a jobless recovery; this is a recovery that is producing good jobs. Even the manufacturing sector, which is so near and dear to my heart because it is such a big issue in Wisconsin, is producing jobs. The reason we are producing jobs in this economy is because people get to keep more of their own money to spend as they see fit. Businesses are reinvesting, rehiring people. The economy is working, and we cannot snuff out this economic recovery by yanking out the tax relief that was so instrumental in getting us onto the path of growth that we are on today. That is why I urge passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 637, I call up the bill (H.R. 4275) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 10-percent individual income tax rate bracket, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 4275.