Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Three million families hit with a new tax in the year 2011.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, this month the Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. (GSUSA) is celebrating its 90th anniversary. Additionally, the Girl Scout Council of Kenosha County is celebrating its 80th anniversary. I would like to recognize the accomplishments of the Girl Scouts in Wisconsin's First Congressional District: the Girl Scout council of Kenosha County, the Girl Scouts of Badger Council, and the Girl Scouts of Racine County. Juliette Gordon Low believed girls needed a supportive community for girls and young women to develop physically, mentally, and spiritually. On March 12, 1912, Ms. Low assembled twelve girls in Savanna, Georgia, for the first Girl Scout meeting. The idea spread quickly. In 1918, six years after that inaugural meeting, Kenosha County organized its first meetings and joined the Girl Scout movement. Four years later, in 1922, the Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. awarded the Girl Scout Council of Kenosha County its official charter. The Girl Scout Law, on which the Girl Scout mission rests, encourages all girls to uphold values such as honesty, fairness, and responsibility, while developing respect and compassion for the world around them. Girl Scouts continue to build on this foundation by adopting the practice of these values to the contemporary issues facing girls today. In contrast to those first twelve Scouts 90 years ago, Girl Scouts today is comprised of over 2.7 million girls and 900,000 adult volunteers in the U.S. Globally, that number tops 10 million members in over 140 countries. Currently, the Girl Scout Council of Kenosha County proudly maintains an active membership of 3200 Scouts. To put that in perspective, one in nine girls are involved in Girl Scouting nationwide, while in Kenosha County, one in every five girls is a Girl Scout. Girl Scouts depends on its volunteers and its community. As with all Girl Scout Councils, the secret behind the success of Scouting is the hard work of the adult volunteers. This well-qualified team of volunteers works with the Council to organize and encourage the Scouts. Additionally, the support of the community is integral to the Girl Scouts. Troop meetings take place in local schools, churches, and other community centers, and outreach activities require the cooperation of community businesses and organizations. The strength of these relationships is visible in Southeastern Wisconsin. The adult members, businesses, and organizations work together to open doors for young women to learn and expand their horizons. For 90 years, Girl Scouts has empowered girls with the values and skills it takes to become the next generation of leaders. The Girl Scout Council of Kenosha County, the Girl Scouts of Badger Council, and the Girl Scouts of Racine County, like Councils all over the world, are helping girls to grow strong and build the necessary foundation to be successful in all they do. It is with admiration that I congratulate the Girl Scouts and all who support them on the first 90 years of remarkable service, and with enthusiasm that I wish them all the best on the next 90 years.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the time to recognize the meritorious service of the destroyer USS Ralph Talbot during World War II. Mr. Frank Urbanowicz, who lives in Janesville, Wisconsin, has worked tirelessly to establish formal recognition of the destroyer's actions through the Presidential Unit Citation. While the Navy has not acted, I would like to share with you a brief history of the destroyer and the significance of its actions. Early in her career, the USS Ralph Talbot entered World War II during the attack on Pearl Harbor. The destroyer reacted immediately, retaliating with gunfire and later patrolling the area in search of enemy submarines. As the war in the Pacific intensified in 1942, the USS Ralph Talbot found herself near the Soloman Islands where, at Savo Island, the destroyer engaged in a heated exchange of gunfire with the enemy that left the ship badly damaged. After repairs the USS Ralph Talbot reentered the conflict in 1943, taking an active role in late June and July with the New Georgia campaign in the Soloman Islands. Her vital actions include rescuing 300 survivors from the downed ship USS McCawley, providing cover to landing troops, and bombing enemy-held areas. These engagements had prompted a recommendation for the Presidential Unit Citation by Commander Destroyer Squadron Twelve. The USS Ralph Talbot continued patrol and escort duties in the region, as well as landing cover. In 1945, the destroyer commenced duties near Japan, facing difficulty early on with a kamikaze attack that again brought considerable damage. The attack, though, failed to dampen the resolve of the USS Ralph Talbot and her crew. She went on to continue patrolling and escorting for the remainder of the war. Following the war, the destroyer was used in atomic tests that ultimately led to her decommission, thus ending a career that earned 12 battle stars during World War II. I share this with you in the hope that we may honor the dedication and fearless service of the USS Ralph Talbot and her crew. The efforts of this destroyer played a vital role in one of the most decisive times in our modern history. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I commend the service of the USS Ralph Talbot and believe we can all look to her with appreciation and gratitude.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today in support of H.R. 1542 because it will set forth for the first time a national policy that promotes the deployment of broadband technology to all Americans. The passage of H.R. 1542 will create a technology- neutral regulatory policy that will encourage all companies to invest in the deployment of the ``last mile'' broadband facilities that will provide the average American with access to high-speed Internet services. This deployment of ``last mile'' broadband facilities is critical to future economic growth in the United States. Not only will H.R. 1542 provide a much needed lift to the American economy as a whole, but it will for the first time, provide a genuine promise to Americans living in underserved communities, both in our inner cities and in rural areas, that they will not be left behind as we move to the next generation of the Internet. High-speed data services have the capability to enfranchise and empower millions of Americans. H.R. 1542 has express build-out provisions that require the large telephone companies to upgrade all of their central offices to provide high-speed Internet capability within 5 years. This is the kind of legislation Congress should be producing. It is bipartisan. It is carefully crafted. It lifts all Americans. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1542. Mr. Chairman, I also would like to ask unanimous consent to insert an article into the Record written by Mr. Stephen Moore in The Investors Business Daily. Got Stimulus? Broadband Bill Would Beef Up Frail Economy With Congress stalemated on a tax-cut economic stimulus plan and the White House considering approval of a dreadful protectionist steel bill, the jittery financial markets are seeking any positive signs that Washington will take productive action to help jump- start economic growth. No industry needs more intelligent help than the embattled telecommunications sector, where profits and investment spending have vaporized. That's why a vote in Congress this week on deregulation of the broadband infrastructure carries such heavy significance for the economy as a whole, and this industry in particular. If approved, the Tauzin-Dingell bill has the potential over the next decade to bring high-speed Web service to nearly every U.S. home. Broadband service is the Mach 4-speed Internet technology that will bring to Americans the next generation of Web services. It could transform the Web from a device for exchanging e-mail and checking stock quotes into a tool that will link all businesses in an e-commerce Web, let users quickly download video or music on demand and give rise to products and applications we can only dream of today. Economist Robert Crandall of the Brookings Institution, and a top deregulation scholar, calculates that if we can accelerate broadband deployment, the value to the U.S. economy could reach $500 billion a year. That's more than the entire economies of most nations. Very few actions that Congress could take--short of scrapping the income tax for a consumption tax or privatizing Social Security--could deliver those size benefits to workers and consumers. Broadband deregulation would seem to be a no- brainer. But this issue has become the mother of all political brawls, pitting AT&T against the Baby Bells, including Verizon and BellSouth. Both sides have spent tens of millions on lobbying and fatuous TV ads. The truth is, there's no angel in this fight. The good news is that if Congress shows some common sense, there can be clear-cut winners here--American consumers and businesses, tens of millions of whom lack broadband access simply because of a regulatory regime that prevents access to the infrastructure. Almost eight of 10 homes and businesses still use clunky dial-up technology to access the Web. Broadband technology is more than a decade old, and still is a rarity in most areas. This makes no sense. It's as if we're still watching black-and-white TV. A hallmark of the U.S. era of high-tech innovation has been to spread the technological breakthroughs to the great middle class in short order. Why the still-lingering digital divide between the information haves and have-nots? Because outdated government regulation is stifling the private-sector investment needed to build the network. Technology analyst George Gilder argues that today's regulation ``privatizes the risk and socializes the benefit.'' Here's how it works: When a phone company risks its own money to wire homes and businesses to broadband, the federal government forces it to open its network to competitors at money-losing, government-set rates. This prevents the original investors from capturing the full value of the risk-taking expenditure. A predictable result has been the collapse in telecom investment over the past 18 months. In 2001, telecom investment contracted by $75 billion, a 15 percent decline. That's one of the biggest reasons the industry shed over 317,000 jobs last year--the largest job loss for any industry ever recorded in a single year. By some estimates, it will cost telecom companies some $200 billion of added broadband investment to lay down the cables to bring this technology into most homes and businesses. How can this investment be accelerated? One answer is for Congress to let businesses write off their mega-investments the year they're made. It also must create a fair-minded regulatory structure that allows those firms that make the investments to reap financial rewards. This means eliminating free-riding competitor access without fair payment. Tauzin-Dingell may be the best chance to close the digital divide and ensure that the U.S. maintains its commanding competitive edge in global communications into the future. It might also be the only chance Congress has this year to pass a genuine economic stimulus bill.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, due to the birth of my first child, Elizabeth Anne, on February 2, 2002, I was absent for Roll Call Votes No. 6 through 14 from February 5, 2002 through February 7, 2002. I have listed below how I would have voted had I been present. On Vote No. 6, H.R. 577, to require any organization that is established for the purpose of raising funds for the creation of a Presidential archival depository to disclose the sources and amounts of any funds raised, I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call Vote No. 7, S. 970, designating the facility of the US Postal Service located on 39 Tremont Street, Paris Hill, Maine, as the Horatio King Post Office Building, I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call Vote No. 8, H. Res. 342, providing for the consideration of motions to suspend the rules for H. Con. Res. 312, I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call Vote No. 9, S. 1888, correcting a technical error in the codification of Title 36 of the United States Code, I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call Vote No. 10, H. Con. Res. 312, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the scheduled Tax Relief Provided by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 passed by a Bipartisan Majority should not be suspended or repealed, I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call Vote No. 11, H.J. Res. 82, recognizing the 91st birthday of Ronald Reagan, I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call Vote No. 12, H. Res. 343, providing for consideration of H.R. 3394, the Cyber Security Research and Development Act, I would have voted, ``Yea.'' On Roll Call Vote No. 13, H.R. 3394, on passage of the Cyber Security Research and Development Act, I would have voted, ``Yea.'' On Roll Call Vote No. 14 on the Journal. February 5 through February 7, 2002, I would have voted ``Yea.''

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, this debate today has been rather unfortunate. We have heard a lot of emotions, a lot of fear, a lot of envy. What we are trying to accomplish is simply this: let us take stock in what our Nation is facing right now. We are in the midst of a war, we have a homeland security crisis, and we are in recession. We have a lot of laid-off workers and more layoffs are occurring. And we know as a historical fact that even if our economy begins to slowly recover, that unemployment is going to linger on and on and on well after that recovery takes place. What we have been trying to do, starting in October, then in December and now, is to try and get people back to work. The things we are trying to pass in this bill are the time-tested, proven, bipartisan solutions to get businesses to stop laying off people, to hire people back, and to help those people who have lost their jobs. It is more than just giving someone an unemployment check. It is also helping those people with their health insurance while they have lost their jobs, and, more important than just that unemployment check is to do what we can to give people a paycheck. We have got to get the engine of economic growth growing again, because we now know because of recession, we do not have the revenues we wanted to, we do not have the revenues we need to fix Medicare, to fix Social Security, to fix these issues. We have got to get Americans back to work, then the surpluses come back, then the jobs come back. That is the constructive answer we are trying to accomplish here on, yes, a bipartisan basis. I urge Members to drop the demagoguery and to pass this bill to help us work together to get the American people back to work and help those people who have lost their jobs.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to accomplish today with the passage of this third stimulus package is to create jobs and help the unemployed. I have just recently read in our local Capitol Hill newspaper that Members from the majority party in the other body want stimulus. They are breaking with their party leadership in asking for stimulus legislation to pass because in their home States they have a lot of people who are losing their jobs. So what we are trying to accomplish today is to give one more chance at it, to give one more crack at it to try and do whatever we can to get Americans back to work, to help grow the economy. Let us take a look at what is in this piece of legislation. We hear about all these impugned motives. We hear about all these bad consequences. What we are trying to accomplish is to pass the kinds of legislation that when they have passed in the past have grown the economy and gotten people back to work. We want to make it easier for employers to keep people employed. We want to make it easier for employers to invest in their businesses, to invest in their employees and hire people back to work. On top of it, for those people who have lost their jobs, we want to help them with their unemployment insurance and with health insurance. The Senate failed to respond on these issues. I am sorry the other body, excuse me, Mr. Speaker, the other body failed to address the issue of getting people back to work and in helping dislocated workers pay for their health insurance or they are out of work. What we are trying to accomplish here is a recognition of a fact that in recessions, unemployment lags on even well after recovery has taken place. In my home State of Wisconsin, we have an unemployment rate that is much higher than the national average. We have lost almost 50,000 jobs just in manufacturing in the State of Wisconsin. We are in trouble in the State of Wisconsin, and we know that even though the Nation's economy may recover, we are still going to have a lot of layoffs, so that is why not just extending unemployment by 13 weeks, but allowing for those States that are still in trouble to extend it another 13 weeks beyond that. Mr. Speaker, this is the right thing to do for our constituents. It is the right thing to do for the economy. It is common sense, and it is an appeal to the Members of the other body who want bipartisan success to get people back to work. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, let us put all the theatrics aside. We are at war, we have a national emergency and homeland security on our hands, and we are in a recession. So speaker after speaker is coming down to the well playing partisan politics. Let us talk about what this bill actually does. This bill has two important goals: one, help the people who have lost their jobs with their health insurance and with unemployment compensation at an unprecedented level; and, second, and most importantly, let us help get people back to work. What this bill does is recognize what has gone wrong with this economy. We now know officially that we are in a recession and that this recession started in March. And we do know that the recession did not come from a decline in consumption but a decline in investment. We have lost 1.3 million manufacturing jobs in America in the last 14 months. In my own home State of Wisconsin, we have lost 29,900 manufacturing jobs in the last 14 months. This bill injects $89 billion of investment stimulus in the economy this year. What we are trying to say is this: Americans, employers, we want you to put your capital at risk. We want to give you incentives to go back and hire people, put them back on the payroll, invest in America, reinvest in your company and create jobs. What we are trying to do is use what has worked time and time again when we have conducted these policies in America before, and that is make it easier for our employers to keep being employers, to invest in America, to grow new jobs. We know for a fact that this bill will stimulate the economy. It will bring people back to work, and it will help those people who are looking for their jobs get other jobs. That is what this is all about. Let us put the partisan shenanigans aside, cut to the brass tacks, pass this bill, and hope we can pass this in the other body, because that is what our constituents deserve.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to rise in support of the reauthorization of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. Over the last 5 years, even as the economy in the rest of the country was booming, the manufacturing economy in Southeastern Wisconsin has been declining. While there are many companies in my district that could not survive without international trade, some companies have moved their operations outside U.S. borders. This is unfortunate for both the workers and the economy of Southeastern Wisconsin. TAA offers a way to buffer the transition. The relocation of Southeastern Wisconsin companies outside the U.S. border has been constant over the past decade. In my 3-year tenure, I have seen the MacWhyte Co. of Kenosha shift production to Canada, Outboard Marine Corp. of Beloit go bankrupt, and Acme Die Casting of Racine shut down because of foreign competition. These companies, and several others over the years have applied for and have been granted either TAA and NAFTA-TAA, or both, for their workers. While TAA is not the same as a stable job, it gives workers a chance to access valuable job training while receiving expanded state unemployment insurance or an $800 relocation expense reimbursement if the worker decides his skills are valuable at another company elsewhere. TAA for workers guarantees extended unemployment benefits and job training to those left jobless when imported goods have contributed significantly to their job loss. A similar program exists for workers affected by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) when American firms relocate production to Mexico or Canada. H.R. 3008 reauthorizes TAA and NAFTA-TAA through FY2003. This bill extends direct benefits for an 26 additional weeks over the previous 78 weeks to total 104 weeks of both training and direct benefits. I supported this bill when it passed the Ways and Means Committee and support it today. I also voted in favor of an appropriation of $416 million in H.R. 3061, the FY2002 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill. Mr. Speaker, reauthorization of TAA and NAFTA-TAA is in the interest of the United States and, especially to those workers in Southeastern Wisconsin that have lost their livelihood as a result of international pressures. I am proud to be a co-sponsor and strong supporter of this bill.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Absolutely. When we take a look at the family farmer, who purchased an asset, or maybe inherited the family farm in their early years, went on to sell it later on, they are going to face a capital gains tax in excess of 20 percent, sometimes nearing as much as 100 percent, because they are taxed on that inflated gain on that asset. As we take a look at what we can do to get this economy going again, because a lot of people have lost their jobs and a lot more are losing their jobs, the jobless rate is the highest rate of growth it has been since 1981, 1982, we know we need to get people back to work. And when we sit here in Congress trying to figure out how we can grow jobs and retain jobs through growing the economy, we look at what works and what does not work. I notice my colleague from Pennsylvania was talking about what did the second largest economy in the world do; what have they been trying to do; what have we tried to do in our Nation's history. Look at Japan, and like the gentleman from Pennsylvania said, 10 different stimulus packages of federal infrastructure spending and rebate checks, and just as many recessions. They have a debt-to-GDP ratio of 130 percent. They have spent themselves deeply into debt. Their long-term interest rates are about 1.2 percent, their short-term rates are about zero. They cannot cut interest rates any more. They cannot increase their money supply. They do not have an economy where they can even save. And what did they get from it? A huge debt. Many around here are talking about doing the same thing the Japanese did: more public infrastructure spending, more rebates. Well, what we learned just 2 days ago from the NBER statistics would show us that we are technically in a recession as of March of this year. And they show us that it was not consumer spending that went down, it was not consumer income that went down, it was investment that dried up. It was business investment that dried up. Venture capital. That seed corn of entrepreneurial activity is down 72 percent.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I just wanted to ask the gentleman a question. What you are basically saying is that the government actually controls to a large extent the price level of jobs, of retirement, of economic activity. The government through its taxes actually can control the price or the activity of job growth, investment, people's retirements, their take-home pay. So if we lower that price, we get more of it. Is that what you are saying? If we tax more of it, we get less of it; and if we tax less of it, we get more of it?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman hit the nail on the head. That is, if we thought more government spending was the answer to our economic ills, we would not be in a recession. We have the most spending we have had in the history of the Federal Government today. We have been increasing spending at a rate greater than inflation. If we thought more spending was the answer, why is Japan mired in a 10-year-long recession? We know that when we see business investment dry up, job losses take place, we know that is where we need to focus; focus on getting people back to work and getting businesses back up and running. And that is not filtering money through Washington by keeping taxes higher and spending more, it is letting people keep more of what they earn so they can reinvest as they see fit. When we look at the risk that is out there in the marketplace, when we look at the cost of doing business, government has a negative bias against investment. We have a bias in our Tax Code against saving and investing. If you make money and spend it, the Federal Government leaves you alone. But if you make money and save and invest it for your family and business, the government penalizes you with a high tax. We can reduce the price of saving and investment by reducing the tax on it. Every time in this country in the last century when we cut the capital gains tax or cut income tax rates, we have grown the economy and encouraged more economic growth and activity. We have grown more revenues coming to those lower tax rates. I think we see before us a plan that is not necessarily even based on ideology, but based on what works and does not work. Higher taxes and more spending has proven to be utterly useless. Lower spending and lower taxes has worked.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I, on behalf of the Green Bay Packers, will not take offense at that. I thank the majority leader, and unfortunately, I can understand we cannot be perfect in yielding. I think there is an interesting comment that was in an editorial recently quoting an old Forest Gump line. That comment is, ``Stimulus is as stimulus does. It is not a stimulus package if it does not stimulate the economy.'' We can take a look at the two different approaches that are being taken right now, because we now see what the Senate has to offer. I am pleased that they have an alternative in place. That is important. For this place to work, we have to get ideas on the table, we have to push legislation, and then we have to get them through and onto the President's desk. But we have two different ideas here. In the Senate, we have an idea. It is an old idea, an idea that has been around a long, long time ago. Some call it Keynesian economics. I think we have a lot of new converts to that school of thought. Their idea is to spend more money: spending, spending to try and get our economy back on its feet. But I would argue, Mr. Majority leader and Mr. Speaker, that spending more money is not going to fix our economy. If we thought that spending more money on top of the two plus trillion budget today would get us out of recession, it would have already worked, because right now we are spending more than we ever have in the history of the Federal Government. We are spending more in the Federal Government than the rate of inflation, about two to three times the rate of inflation. We have already spent over $100 billion in emergency spending since the beginning of the year, and in the wake of this terrorist tragedy. So spending more money here in Washington, artificially keeping taxes high, is not the answer. But when we look at the recessions of the past, when we take a look at all of the jobs that have been lost, we look at what has worked and what has not worked, that is what we did in the House side. When we look at the past when we cut taxes on capital, when we made it easier to invest in America and invest in jobs, when we lowered the tax on risk, the tax on capital, guess what: We had more investment and we had more jobs. There are not a lot of things that Congress really can do to grow the economy. We have the Federal Reserve and monetary policy, we have the Congress and fiscal policy. There is one thing that we can get wrong and there is one thing that we can get right. The thing that we can get wrong is that we can spend, spend, spend and raise that baseline of spending, and dig ourselves deeper into debt for the future, so that we send our children and their grandchildren an even larger bill in the form of greater debt. But the one thing that we can get right in fiscal policy here in Congress is that we can look at who creates jobs in this country, how jobs are created, and what can we do to make it easier to create jobs. When we look at that, we see that there are a lot of taxes that are levied on capital, a lot of taxes that are levied on investment. When we look at this recession, like other recessions it started with a big drop in investment, a 72 percent decline in venture capital. Venture capital a year ago was about $35 billion. Today it is $8 billion. That is the seed corn that starts every small business. When we see the small businesses dying on the vine all over the place, small businesses closing their doors, huge layoffs at our largest employers across the country, we see a huge decline in investment in those companies, in those businesses. The one thing that we can control is we can make investment cheaper, we can make risk-taking less risky, by reducing the price on those investments, the price on risk. That means reducing the tax on those things by making it easier through the Tax Code, by lowering the bias against saving, the bias against investment, by making it easier for businesses to reinvest in their corporations, by making it easier for the market to take risks, to take capital risks, to invest in new ideas. That way we can create jobs. Every time we have cut the capital gains tax, every time we have accelerated depreciation, every time we have cut marginal income tax rates across-the-board in this last century, every time we have done that we have created more jobs. We have improved the growth of the economy. And we duly increased revenue coming into the Federal Government in those sources. So we see that there is a big difference here. On the one side we are focused on one thing and one thing only, jobs; getting people back to work, making sure that they are working. On the other body's side, they want to spend more money here in Washington, and that is the difference. And the problem with that kind of thinking is, the problem with the idea that we need to have more rebates and more spending is that we are going to get consumers to all of the sudden spend more money. Consumers are not going to spend more money if they do not have jobs, if they are losing more jobs. So I think what we have to be in the House is really admirable. We need to build on this; and we have to learn the lessons of the past, and, that is, simply spending more money in Washington is not going to get people back to work. But making it easier for Americans, for small, medium and large businesses to invest in their people, in their companies, making it easier to create jobs, that is what we can do. And we can help here in Congress to make it easier to create jobs. That is what we are trying to do. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, the events of the past months have changed both our world and our lives. Without warning, this country's civilians found themselves on the front lines in the war against terrorism. But our American spirit has prevailed. Though unprecedented obstacles continue to confront us, Americans have joined together to overcome these difficulties. Where terrorists hoped to divide us in chaos, our dedication to persevere made us stronger than ever. The Members and staff of the House Administration Committee along with the Chief Administrative Officer and his staff, the Attending Physician, and our friends at the General Accounting Office made a vital contribution to battling the recent terrorist strike on our country. When a suspicious letter containing anthrax caused members of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, Senator Russell D. Feingold's staff, and members of the Capitol Police Department to test positive for exposure, the Capitol complex closed so that an environmental sweep of the buildings could be conducted as a precautionary measure. While the Congressional office buildings remained closed much longer than had been originally expected, thanks to everyone's efforts, Congress itself was able to remain active and not fulfill the terrorists' goals. I want to thank everyone who assisted in allowing my staff to conduct business from the GAO offices while our own offices in the Longworth building were closed. Because of their generosity and flexibility, the criminals behind the spread of anthrax failed in their attempt to disrupt democracy and bring the American government to a halt. In this way, they played an important role in the ongoing war on terrorism. I greatly appreciate their willingness to accept some inconveniences in order to achieve a greater goal--to keep America working.'

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) yielding me the time; and Mr. Speaker, let us boil this down to simple terms. Let us cool the hot rhetoric that is flowing through here. What this is about is jobs. It is getting Americans back to work. We have got 7.8 million Americans who have lost their jobs in this economy. The terrorists know they cannot take on our military. They know they cannot take a frontal assault against our country, so they are trying to get Americans to retreat from participating in our economy. Let us go with what works. When we have cut the cost of capital in this country, when we have reduced the cost of employers reinvesting in their businesses, we have created jobs. Accelerated depreciation, alternative minimum tax, simplifying capital gains, those proposals are designed to make it easier for Americans to reinvest in America, to create jobs, for employers to reinvest in their employees, because if you do not have employers, you do not have employees. Mr. Speaker, this substitute, and I have read it and it is a valid attempt, this substitute puts a $90 billion tax on small businesses, the engine of growth in this economy. Eighty percent of the last number of jobs we have had in this economy were created by small businesses. A $90 billion tax increase on the engine of jobs in America is contained in this Democratic substitute. More importantly, it has a $32 billion spending spree in this bill. If more Federal spending were the answer to getting our economy back on its feet again, we would not be heading into a recession today. We are spending the most we have in the history of this Federal Government. We know that as we look at other nations, if we look at the second largest economy in the world, Japan, they have been in recession for 10 years. They have had four recessions over the last 10 years, and they have had five stimulus packages. Every one of those five stimulus packages looks just like this Democrat substitute. Every one of those five stimulus packages has failed. I urge to pass what works. Get Americans back to work. Pass the Republican stimulus package which is true in stimulus.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, the oldest trick in Washington is that if you disagree with somebody, impugn their motives, do not attack their policies. That is what we hear on the floor today. Motives are being impugned. All of this talk about giving corporate contributors back their money, those kinds of things, it is just ridiculous and it is a shot to the motives of this Congress. Mr. Speaker, let us bring this issue back to where it belongs, and that is the fact that we have 7.8 million in America today without a job. We are going into a recession. Now, the problem we have is we need to get people back to work. That is what we are trying to do. The whole entire purpose of a stimulus package is just that, stimulate the economy, get people back to work. So while some in this Chamber are talking about how to make unemployment a more tolerable position, how to make it something that is easier, what we seek to do in this package is to stop unemployment, to get people back to work. What we are trying to do is to recognize what brought us to this recession in the first place. It was a decline in investment. When investment dried up in this country, for instance, a 72 percent decline in venture capital, a 50 percent decline in small business financing, a credit crunch that is covering America, when that happened, layoffs began to occur. Then, when people were losing their jobs, when their neighbors around them were losing their jobs, people stopped spending money in the economy. Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do is give people job security back. The goal of this bill is job retention, job creation through economic growth. We will not see a rebound in consumer confidence with more rebates. We will see a rebound in consumer confidence if people get their jobs back. People are not going to spend their money if they have lost their job or are afraid of losing their job. People will spend money if they have a job and know that they will keep their job. The goal of this bill is to grow the economy and let people get their jobs back. Do not believe the hype. I urge passage of this rule.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for all their work on this fine piece of legislation. They have put in a lot of time and hours, and they have listened to a lot of Members with respect to this very complicated piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a wise amendment, and it is for this reason: In 1975, Congress passed a very important piece of legislation. That legislation is what we call special education, the Individuals with Disabilities Act. But at that time, that legislation said the Federal Government would fund 40 percent of special education and the States would cover the rest of it. Well, Mr. Chairman, that has not occurred. We are, at best, funding 12 to 15 percent of special education, a Federal mandate on our local schools which now, since those days, has become the largest unfunded Federal mandate on our local school districts. In the State of Wisconsin, from which I come and which I represent, we have a revenue cap. What that means in States like Wisconsin and other States across the country with the revenue cap, that means $1 that is used to chase an unfunded Federal mandate is $1 that is taken away from every other resource allocation made by a local school district. It is $1 taken away from all of these other programs. It suffocates local control, it artificially props up property taxes, and it disallows us from having the ability at home in our districts, in our school districts, in our LEAs, from making the resource decisions to cater our needs and problems per the problems of our school districts. So with that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important that this Congress works very, very hard to try and meet that unfunded Federal mandate, because if we do so, our school districts can address all of these issues. They can address bilingual education, they can address all of the programs that are being used to pay for in this amendment. It will be up to the school districts. These programs are important programs. This amendment does keep the funding of these programs at or above the President's request. So I think it is a very reasonable and commonsense amendment. I just think it is very important, Mr. Chairman, that we finally recognize that Washington all too often penalizes our local decision- making. It forces unfunded mandates on our schools, and in States especially where we have revenue caps it basically makes a choice between higher property taxes or not or between taking money out of every other education program in a school district or putting it into special education. We should not have to force school districts into that kind of decision-making. A vote for this amendment is a vote to elevate the percentage of special education from Washington from 15 percent to 21 percent, basically even half of the mandate, not even far enough. But it is a vote for local control, it is a vote for local resource allocation. With that, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for all of their work on this. I just think it is important that we make a statement on behalf of local control. This is a great way of doing so.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has my pledge to work with him on fixing this process. By this time tomorrow night, we are going to lose four dairy farms in the State of Wisconsin at the pace we are at right now. We have lost more dairy farms in the State of Wisconsin in the last 10 years than any other State in the country has ever had, save Minnesota. I want to expand on those points, but I do think that there are a lot of unanswered questions with this amendment. I applaud the effort. I hope we can work together after this to finish this.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would like to thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for his effort in putting this amendment together. We have had this fight for years. We have had this fight for hours today about removing these regional disparities with respect to dairy, and that has been a fight that we have had for a long, long time. I unfortunately believe it is a fight we are going to continue to have. But this amendment is so broad and so sweeping and so comprehensive in so many ways that it leaves a lot of unanswered questions on the table. One of the concerns I have, which is a question or a concern is that, A, we have not seen a large scale analysis as to its real effect across the country. I really do not know what this is going to do to the dairy farmers in Wisconsin. One of the concerns I have is that this could incentivize an oversupply of class 1 price, which could turn over and depress the price of class 3 milk, which is what we produce where I come from. So I am concerned that this may actually depress our class 3 price in the upper Midwest. But I do applaud this effort. I think it is high time we think outside the box and try and get rid of the regionalism that has too long plagued this debate, but it is just not ready for prime time, in my opinion.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter to the President of the United States from a large number of reputable economists and public policy advocates who have identified a pro-growth pro-jobs strategy to revive the U.S. economy. Dear Mr. President. We, the undersigned, believe that quick and decisive action is needed to rebuild the nation's capital stock and restore economic growth. The economic slowdown that began in the middle of last year was perilously close to becoming a recession. But, because of what happened on September 11, what was a cause for concern is now a threat to national security. The terrorist attacks destroyed a significant amount of wealth and damaged the short-term capability of key sectors of America's economy. Recovering from these despicable assaults will be a tremendous ordeal, but dealing with this challenge is only part of the problem. Equally important is the need to restore the economy's overall performance. If America is to successfully wage war on terrorism, we will need the resources that only can be generated by an economy firing on all cylinders. This means substantial tax reform and significant tax rate reductions. We believe the core elements of an Economic Rebuilding and Recovery Package are: A shift toward ``expensing'' of business investment. It is counterproductive not to allow companies to fully deduct the expense of investments in new factories, machines, structures, and technology. Replacing the current ``depreciation'' rules with immediate expensing--or at least a significant shift in that direction as contemplated in the High-Productivity Investment Act introduced in the US House of Representatives--will boost capital formation and help rebuild the wealth destroyed by terrorists. Accelerated implementation of the income tax rate reductions. The tax rate reductions enacted earlier this year constitute sound long-term tax policy, but many of the pro- growth elements do not take effect until 2004, 2006, and 2010. This means the additional growth will not take effect until that time. The rate reductions, IRA expansions, and death tax repeal should be made effective as of September 11, 2001. Capital gains tax rate reduction. The capital gains tax is a form of double taxation that penalizes risk-taking and entrepreneurship. This tax should not exist, and it certainly imposes significant economic damage in today's uncertain environment. A large--and permanent--reduction in the capital gains tax will stimulate new investment and more productive use of capital. We look forward to working with you to rebuild America and restore economic growth. Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. Sincerely, Paul Beckner, President, Citizens for a Sound Economy; John Berthoud, President, National Taxpayers Union; David Burton, Senior Fellow, Prosperity Institute; Steve Entin, President and Executive Director, Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation; Robert Funk, Executive Director, American Shareholders Alliance; James Gattuso, Vice-President for Policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Tom Giovanetti, President, Institute for Policy Innovation; Lawrence Hunter, Chief Economist, Empower America; Charles W. Jarvis, Chairman and CEO, United Seniors Association; Dave Keene, Chairman, American Conservative Union; Karen Kerrigan, Chairman, Small Business Survival Committee; Jim Martin, President, 60 Plus Association. Dan Mitchell, McKenna Senior Fellow in Political Economy, Heritage Foundation; Steve Moore, President, Club for Growth; Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform; Duane Parde, Executive Director, American Legislative Exchange Council; Andrew F. Quinlan, President and CEO, Center for Freedom and Prosperity; Richard Rahn, Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute; Gary Robbins, President, Fiscal Associates; Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of Treasury for Economic Policy; Terrence Scanlon, President, Capitol Research Center; Tom Schatz, President, Citizens Against Government Waste; Lew Uhler, President, National Tax Limitation Committee. * Organizational affiliations are included for identification purposes only. Identical letters were sent to the following: Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle, and Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. We must ensure that our Commander in Chief can bring the full power of the United States Armed Forces to bear against the villains who struck our nation so cruelly the morning of September 11th. We act not out of wrath, but with the solemn realization that evil must not go unchecked, that our security must be defended, and that our liberty must be upheld. We stand together tonight united in our resolve to fight the scourge of terrorism and protect our beloved country and its people. We understand that it will not be easy and that it will require sustained action, commitment, and vigilance. We must steel ourselves for the months ahead and bear in mind the words inscribed on the base of the Marine War Memorial Iwo Jima: ``Uncommon Valor Was a Common Virtue.'' They remind us of the character and courage of those who serve in our Armed Forces, and I think they also apply to all who put their own lives on the line in an effort to save lives during and after Tuesday's terrible attacks. Now is the time for valor for all Americans.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This is a quick response and an appropriate response. What we want to make sure happens is that for those victims of this terrorist act, they are afforded the same kinds of benefits in the Tax Code that victims of terrorism abroad, in the military or civilian, are entitled to. We want to make sure that if any of the benefits that are being given through an airline, through FEMA, that at the end of the year, their family members are not hit with some kind of unexpected tax bill. We want to make sure that the victims have an estate that is not taxed to the government, but that can go to their remaining loved ones, because we know that the people who experienced this tragedy did not have any estate planning, did not have an ability to set their affairs in order. This came as a surprise. We want to make sure that with respect to the Federal Tax Code, that they are given any entitlement and ability to be treated just like a fallen soldier in battle abroad or a civilian abroad. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, for bringing this together on such short notice. I think it is very appropriate. I think we all know that this is only the beginning of many pieces of legislation that we are going to have to pass in this body, whether it be to equip FEMA with resources for rescue missions or the military with the resources they need. I think also it is going to have to be a work in progress of this committee to do what we can to assure that our economy continues to grow and that the American spirit, not only in patriotism but also in the awesome economy that we have continues on, so that we can continue to fuel what we need in this country from a patriotic standpoint, from an economic standpoint, from a moral standpoint. This is the beginning of those kinds of works that we are about to pass in this Congress. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for what they have been doing.