Kurt Schrader

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. I guess what I would like to close with here is that I can't say it often enough and more accurate enough, that this is nothing about taxation. This is about the promotion of an industry that we would like to support in America: Christmas. What's more American than Christmas? I can't believe the opposition is seeking to attack Christmas and Christmas tree producers. It's tough out there. The recession isn't over. The recession isn't over in rural America right now. Over 70 percent of the folks in the Christmas tree industry easily favor this bill. I'd love to see my approval rating come even up to 15 percent or 20 percent. These guys are at 70 percent wanting to get something done. I think we owe it to them to back them. The producers across this country need our help. We did it for beef. We did it for dairy. We've done it for cotton. We've done it for a number of other industries. I don't see why Christmas trees should be discriminated against and we should be encouraging Chinese jobs and Chinese fake trees in our Christmas tree pageants. I think that's terrible. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin. We've collaborated on a number of endeavors, most recently in the Ag Committee. There was great bipartisan debate in the Agriculture Committee. I commend to those late-night insomniacs for their 11-hour viewing enjoyment, come watch how a real committee should work in the Congress of the United States, where there's give-and-take, people hold strong positions, but at the end of the day the process moves forward. I would like to echo my friend and colleague's comments here. The Problem Solvers caucus, of which we're all members, is an outgrowth of the No Labels movement that's been going on for several years. Late last year, No Labels approached a number of us in Congress about getting together and were we truly interested in solving problems. I think the thing that got all of our attention is it wasn't giving up who you were, it wasn't giving up your philosophy. We have extreme right members, we have extreme left members, and we've got some of our centrists, or as my colleagues like to call it, squishy people, in the middle. And that's not a bad thing, necessarily. But what we are all about is solving problems, not dealing with the minutia, the differences that we have, dealing with all these one-off issues that our constituents don't send us to Congress to deal with, but we are trying to deal with bigger issues. The GAO, or General Accounting Office, sends us information every year about things that should be fixed in Congress--nonpartisan, bipartisan issues that we should be addressing. The No Labels group is starting to pick those things up. As the gentleman from Florida talked about, there's a plethora of issues upon which we can agree. The mark of a true statesman, I think, is not focusing on what you disagree on with your colleagues but what you can agree on. I think that, and some of the bigger issues that, hopefully, we'll go forward on and the No Labels group will be attacking, you'll see us also start to look at some of the reforms of the process. I alluded to the Ag Committee the other day. There are ways to make this process work here and make America proud and, as we've heard so far, restore faith in your government once again.

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SCHRADER. Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 minute. I'm very pleased to offer the only real bipartisan amendment to this bill, and maybe one of the few bipartisan amendments we'll see this Congress. I hope not. This is actually an attempt to rectify some of the deficiencies in the underlying bill. I certainly don't agree with the findings. As has been pointed out, the lack of a budget at this point in time is because of the fiscal cliff negotiations. Congress, frankly, is to blame for that. The President usually starts his budget in November or December, and that was impossible. Also, I think there's a little revisionist history regarding the debt that the President did inherit. Almost one-half to two-thirds of that $1 trillion he inherited from the previous administration and previous Congresses. Nevertheless, we do have a huge debt, and the deficit problem needs adjusting and addressing. The only bipartisan solution to that has been put forward by Simpson-Bowles. This has had widespread recognition by folks here in Congress, folks outside of Congress, businessmen and - women, as a possible solution to a long-term, unified approach to our debt and deficit. The tenets of that, of course, deal with the tax expenditures that we have and the health care costs that are going up. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHRADER. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to my respected colleague from New York (Mr. Gibson).

Mr. SCHRADER. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCHRADER. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen.)

Mr. SCHRADER. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. I appreciate the discussion here. I hope that America would know this is a bipartisan amendment. America should be pleased that some Republicans and some Democrats are coming together to solve our country's problems. The good chairman from Georgia is unfortunately misinformed regarding Simpson-Bowles. It did include, of course, a great deal of discussion on health care and health care costs. The ACA, contrary to some misconceptions, actually saved over $700 billion in taxpayer money over the long haul. I think at this point in time, the President, whose own debt commission was Simpson-Bowles, would be pleased to have a little direction from the ultimate appropriating budget body, which is Congress, not the President. Give him some direction; enable his commission to guide us with that bipartisan balanced approach, including revenues, including through tax reform, making sure that our health care and safety net is there for our kids and grandkids, as the gentleman from Virginia talked about. This is a very important point in this Congress' deliberations. We have to come together. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHRADER. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, I'm here today to share with my colleagues yesterday's very exciting announcement of the first utility-scale, grid-connected wave energy test site in the United States, which I'm proud to say is going to occur in my district in Newport, Oregon. The Northwest National Marine Energy Center, based at Oregon State University, will be constructing the Pacific Marine Energy Center to test energy generation potential and environmental impacts of these wave energy devices. NNMREC, established in 2008, is a partnership between Oregon State University and the University of Washington and is one of only three U.S. Department of Energy-supported marine renewable energy centers. In addition to the Department of Energy, this work is supported by my State of Oregon, the Wave Energy Trust, and other private and public agencies. NNMREC's selection of Newport as the site will not only benefit the community of Newport but, frankly, the entire Oregon coast and will set a course for Oregon and the Nation to be one step closer to energy independence. I am also very proud of Oregon State University and their continued leadership in this area. I would be very remiss if I didn't give a shout out to the incredible work done by Belinda Batten, director of NNMREC, and Annette von Jouanne, professor at Oregon State University, and all the faculty and students in the Wave Energy Department at OSU. Their tireless efforts are the reason we're able to celebrate this achievement today.

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, we have actually completed our withdrawal from Iraq. We are on our way to withdrawing from Afghanistan. There is not a strategic need to increase the base budget for the Defense Department beyond the BCA, Budget Control Act, agreement. Our own military leaders have acknowledged that our debt and deficits are the largest national security threat that our country actually faces. We need to be building on the fiscal foundation the BCA laid in order to provide for our children's futures and the military they will need to defend their freedoms. Sticking to the BCA framework is our strategic priority. We should take a moment to remember where we were at this time last year. There was a real threat of government and economic shutdown due to the approaching debt limit. In the very 11th hour, we passed the bipartisan Budget Control Act to forestall a sovereign debt crisis by cutting $900 billion from the deficits and agreeing to cut another $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. Even still, our national debt has increased by $1.3 trillion since we came to that agreement last August. In part, this is due to the failure of the supercommittee to reform entitlements in our Tax Code. In the coming months, we need to finish the job we began with the passage of the Budget Control Act. Reforming entitlements and instituting comprehensive tax reform as suggested by the Bowles-Simpson plan is no longer an option but a national necessity. Changes scheduled to go into effect in January would harm the economy and the middle class while proving ineffective in true deficit reduction. Backpedaling on the BCA is irresponsible. By holding this body to the bipartisan law we passed last August and reducing our debt by reducing the underlying bill's appropriation by a mere $7.5 billion--in Washington, D.C. terms--the amendment before you today will enhance our national economic security. We need to stick to the spending caps and move on from the FY 2013 appropriation process so we can work on getting the next framework put in place to responsibly address what has become known as the ``fiscal cliff.'' The American people and businesses in this country deserve certainty about their future. We need to do right by them, avoid a crisis of our own making, and lay the groundwork for restoring our economy and getting hardworking Americans back to work. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. I rise today to support our planning for a safe and responsible withdrawal from Afghanistan in the very, very near term. No one has forgotten why we went into Afghanistan: to rout out and bring justice to those who attacked us on September 11, 2001. With extraordinary bravery, our troops have accomplished the mission they were set out to do over 10 years ago. Osama bin Laden has been brought to justice and al Qaeda has been largely crushed. Our troops have done their job. Many of them--over 2,000 of them, in fact--have given their lives not only to defend our freedoms but those of Afghans as well. After 10 years of war and reconstruction, it's time for Afghans to stand up for Afghanistan, and it's time for us to do our job and bring our troops home. We can continue to defend ourselves from terrorists without tens of thousands of troops fighting a ground war in Afghanistan. The $88 billion we're talking about putting into Afghanistan in this Defense appropriations bill this week could build our own infrastructure and create jobs and economic opportunity right here at home. It is ludicrous to be spending such large sums rebuilding other countries when our own economic problems are so large and persistent. Our greatest leaders say our greatest threat is not a military one, but an economic one.

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to discuss an important and timely issue negatively affecting the welfare of the horses of this great country. It's called ``soring.'' Soring is the act of deliberately causing pain to exaggerate the leg motion of high-gaited horses, such as Tennessee Walking Horses. This inhumane practice, despite being illegal for almost 40 years, is still used far too often by many owners and trainers to win in the show ring. Today, I hope I can persuade you, my fellow Members of Congress, to take interest in this issue, to oppose this cruel and illegal practice, and to increase the support for the USDA's Horse Protection Program. Horses are sored in several different ways: Caustic materials, such as kerosene or mustard oil, are applied to the lower leg. This makes the horse's leg sensitive so that, when certain cruel devices like chains are placed against it, it causes severe pain, causing the horse to lift its leg high in an exaggerated gait. There are other common approaches also, like trimming the hoof excessively, exposing sensitive tissues, inserting devices between the shoe pads and the sole of the horse and, frankly, improper shoeing techniques. No matter the technique, its purpose is to cause the horse pain so that it lifts its leg higher and faster. While rest and training may allow some horses to eventually recover from that harm, others suffer irreversible hoof damage and are actually crippled for life. The harm caused by soring is not just physical. The mental damage done to the horse can make its rehabilitation difficult, if not impossible. Soring is so egregious that it has actually been illegal in this country for over 40 years. The Horse Protection Act was passed in 1970. So why, 40 years later, are we still having the same conversation? The problem lies within the culture of some of those in the walking horse industry, in which unethical trainers and unethical owners not only continue this practice but use tricks to deceive detection. Substantial financial gains come from winning horse shows, and this makes soring appealing to many unscrupulous owners and trainers. Soring is a shortcut that overshadows the balance and collection seen in the beautiful natural movement of horses that perform racking gaits. These gaits can actually be achieved without soring, rather by investing the proper time, training, and conditioning on the horse. The Horse Protection Program at the USDA serves as regulatory enforcement for the Horse Protection Act. Unfortunately, due to budget constraints, USDA inspectors only attend a small fraction of the shows. In 2011, USDA documented 587 violations of the act while attending only 62 of the 600 to 700 shows held that year. Fiscal year 2012 was the first time in the history of the Horse Protection Program that it actually received more than $500,000 in funding. In February of this year, Barney Davis, a Tennessee trainer, was convicted of soring, fined $4,000, and was sentenced to a year in prison. In March, nationally known trainer Jackie L. McConnell and three of his associates were charged with 52 counts of violating the Horse Protection Act. These recent charges, including the first two convictions in two decades under the U.S. Horse Protection Act, have brought increased attention to this horrible abuse. These indictments and prosecutions are long overdue, and I applaud the U.S. Attorneys and USDA civil servants who have courageously worked to end soring. Yet adequate funding of the Horse Protection Program is critical for the enforcement of this act and for the prevention of this abusive practice. It is imperative that USDA's Horse Protection Program be adequately funded, ensuring the end of this cruel practice. Financial backing must be supported, not hampered, by this Congress. The American Veterinary Medical Association has condemned soring for over 40 years. I join my fellow veterinarians across America in calling for a stop to this heinous abuse of America's horses. We in Congress need to stand up as well and speak out against this egregious form of animal cruelty. It is time for soring to end.

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. Barely 10 months ago, we passed a bipartisan Budget Control Act to forestall a sovereign debt crisis. On Tuesday, our total national debt increased to over $15.7 trillion. Clearly, the problem we passed the BCA to address is getting worse, not better. As our own military leaders have acknowledged again and again, our debt and deficits are the largest national security threat that our Nation actually faces. Backpedaling on the Budget Control Act, as suggested here, is irresponsible. We need to be building on the fiscal foundations in order to provide for our children's futures and for the future of the military. We spend a lot of hours here talking about how much we can't afford to cut back military spending and not nearly enough time talking about how to prepare for the military of the future. In my opinion, the smart military budget of the future emphasizes our National Guard. It has proven more than a ready reserve in the sands of Iraq and in the mountains of Afghanistan. The National Guard is an affordable strategic asset of a unique capability. The rising cost to our military is probably personnel. The National Guard will help reduce that cost 4 1.

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I really commend Mr. Cooper and Mr. LaTourette for bringing this bipartisan proposal forward. It's really time, America, to focus on things we agree on, not things that we disagree on. America wants to see us as uniters, not dividers, in this business down here. This is the only bipartisan proposal that's going to be offered. It is going to be the framework for whatever deal we come to at the end of this year when we're staring the Bush tax cuts going off and when we're staring extreme defense cuts in the face. This is the proposal, in some form, that will be adopted. This proposal recognizes there's a balance. It's not perfect. There are some groups that are very peeved at the altar, quite frankly. But this is the only proposal that's bipartisan. It actually addresses the two big drivers. Our revenues are at an all-time low, the lowest since World War II. You're not going to have a vibrant economy without revenue to support our schools, our infrastructure, our transportation, and our economic development. Yes, the entitlements are a problem. The gentleman from Wisconsin, while he's not in favor of some of the aspects of the health care bill, adapts all of the savings that we did in the last Congress because they're good, efficient ways to improve the life and solvency of Medicare. Medicare is not a problem because President Bush was evil or President Obama was evil. It's a problem that we've got more people and the baby boomers are retiring, so there are less workers to support them at the end of the day, and great health care that's being driven. So we need to get our act together and support this proposal.

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my name as a cosponsor for H.R. 1161.

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. Well, folks, your Congress is at it again. Republicans have been talking about debt and deficit for the last year, and here we're going to add nearly $200 billion in new spending to the deficit. Well, we're going to use a bunch of pay-fors that we're setting aside for the original deficit. This is the most disingenuous group of folks that I've seen in a long time; and to be honest, a little bit on our side of the aisle. We've been railing about doing anything that would remotely affect Social Security, yet we're willing to pass another payroll tax cut that adds to the difficulty of funding our system. Oh, no. We're going to issue some IOUs. I don't think there is a single American out there that believes that another IOU is a good thing for Social Security. We have got to stop borrowing against our Social Security. Not only that, the payroll tax, you get only 60 cents back for every dollar you invest. I don't think that's a very good investment. President Bush tried that in 2008, and there was no change in consumption. What we should be doing is focusing on unemployment, where you get $1.60 back in economic activity for every dollar you put in, just like the President asked for. And we should have a more robust doc fix that makes sure seniors and doctors get paid what they need to keep Medicare solvent.

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is pretty straightforward. The goal here is to actually codify some of what has been done here just by Executive order to make sure Congress' intent is actually done regardless of what the executive branch is considering. It basically codifies the cost-benefit analysis in statute that we would like to have. As we all know, a lot of times some of our agencies get a little overzealous, and some of the cost-benefit analyses that they do or don't do do not actually reflect a lot of the real-world criteria by which American men and women in businesses actually operate. So our goal here is to actually follow through on what is already existing law but to just codify it so it's not a huge change. There is a little bit more to it. Right now a lot of the independent Federal agencies are not subject to this Executive order. Of course, this amendment would actually codify that they should be. There is no reason any Federal agency should be exempt from giving Americans the idea of what it's going to cost and what sort of benefit we're going to get out of this at the end of the day. Last but not least, I think one of the big pieces that is very, very important to know as a veterinarian, a man of science a little bit, are the assumptions by which these cost-benefit analyses are done. That oftentimes influences the outcome. It's important for the agencies, the businesses and, again, others in this country to look at what assumptions are being made when these cost-benefit analyses are being done. Sometimes they deserve to be challenged, and sometimes questions need to be raised. So I think it's extremely important that any cost- benefit analysis assumptions should be made public and transparent. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you very much. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here on the floor doing a colloquy with a Republican colleague of mine. That's not common these days. Perhaps in the not- too-distant past it was more common, but I think it shows that there's an opportunity for actually good big-picture agreements on what we need to do in general, although we may disagree on some of the particulars. I'd like to point out some of the real problems that my colleague from Wisconsin alluded to. First and foremost, I have got a chart here that talks about the amount of money we're actually borrowing to make our payments in this country. He's right, we're spending way too much. We're spending almost $3.6 trillion. Our revenue's only about $2.2 trillion. We're borrowing almost 40 percent of what we spend. You can't do that in your household, folks. You can't do that in your small business, and we shouldn't be doing that and can't do that as the greatest Nation on Earth and keep our fiscal balance sheets in play. Right now our debt is almost up to $15 trillion, and our deficit has been stuck at $1.3 trillion for the last 3 years. The projections are even worse. I would like to show a chart that shows the long-term projections, given the current rate of spending at our level of revenues, which are quite low at this point in time. It's a little bit busy, but there's a grayer portion down below you can see that talks about the actual current law budget. That's the stuff that my friend in Wisconsin and I have to budget to that the Congressional Budget Office puts out. But the real budget is what the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget talks about. That's the real long-term debt that we're dealing with. That assumes, unlike the current law budget, that we're not going to eliminate all the tax breaks to middle class Americans, different corporations. It assumes that we're not going to have docs have to pony up a 30 percent cut in their wages to make ends meet, and it also assumes that we're going to do something to keep the alternative minimum tax from affecting middle class Americans. I would also like to point out that this is not a good picture. You look at what's happened historically, we're in a really bad situation at this point in time and there are some pretty big historical drivers to this. I'd like to switch to a different chart. This chart shows historically where our revenues and our spending have been. The top line here is our spending; this lacquer line down below is our revenues. They have been a little out of whack forever. Only during the years when we had a Democrat President and a Republican Congress were they back in good shape. That was just 15 years ago. But you can see that we historically have had our revenues probably in the 18 to 18.5 percent range and our expenditures in the 20 percent range, not great, but we're worse now. We're at 25 percent and spending and only 14 or 15 percent in revenues, to emphasize the point my colleague from Wisconsin made. So we've got to really work at getting this stuff back under control, or we're not going to be where we need to be. I'd point out real quick that to that point, we're actually giving away almost a trillion dollars in tax breaks. And I think my colleague has some good points he's going to make in a moment on that. And we've got to get this Tax Code under control. As a small businessman, you can't possibly do your own tax; you can't even come close. When I started my veterinary business way back when-- I'm not going to say how old I was, my friend--but I could actually do my own taxes. That's impossible these days. That's impossible, and it shouldn't be that Byzantine. The other piece of the problem here is the entitlement system. People don't want to admit this, particularly people on my side of the aisle, but we're going broke here in the Medicare system. The bottom blue is Social Security. Medicaid and other health expenditures is the green. And Medicare is up at the top there. And here's our revenue line. We're busting through with Medicare. That's not because of malfeasance. Yeah, there's some waste, fraud and abuse that we have got to get under control, and I'm sure we can get it under control. But there are some simple economics here. In 1960, there were five workers for every one beneficiary. Right now there are only three workers for every beneficiary; and in 2035, there will be two workers for every beneficiary--less money in to take care of more folks. Back in 1975, we had about 25 million beneficiaries, I believe. Now it is almost 89 million beneficiaries. And the cost per Medicare recipient has gone through the roof. We are living longer, hopefully living healthier lives. In 1975, we spent about $2,000 per Medicare enrollee. That's hard to believe in this day and age. Now it's $18,000. So more people, more expensive care, which is good quality care, and frankly fewer workers to provide for the benefits adds up to this huge growth in spending that will be facing us over the next few years unless we get our act together at this point in time.

Mr. SCHRADER. I thank you. Yes, we need to get this economy going again. The bottom line, while everyone is looking for a magic wand from Washington, DC, private enterprise is the real engine of economic growth. My colleague has talked about that and has a chart that will demonstrate that. The point being here that it's going to take a huge lift and a huge push by this committee to go way beyond what anyone has ever considered in the past. I mean, I would like to remind America we already passed this Budget Control Act in August that set some targets for our domestic and defense discretionary spending, but that's only a third of our budget. Two-thirds of our budget is the mandatory payments, some of the entitlement programs that I pointed out a minute ago, as well as ag payments and other income stream payments for special groups. We've got to get our mandatory payments under control to make sure that we get on a trajectory that's going to make a difference. A lot of people say let's just cut defense or get rid of the Department of Education. I'm not sure that I agree with all of those ideas out there. Certainly we could reduce in both of those Departments; that's a good idea. But what I have to point out is our current deficit is $1.3 trillion. That's more than the combined budget of the defense and domestic discretionary programs. So you have to get at the long-term programs and the revenue issues that my colleague and I are talking about to actually put this country on a different trajectory. How do you get that business to start investing? How do you get private enterprise to be part of the engine of economic growth? Well, we may agree or disagree on the floor here. There are a lot of different ways; you've seen that in Congress this past year. But I would point out to my colleagues that at the end of the day, it was Republicans and Democrats that passed the CR, the continuing resolution, for 2011. It was Democrats and Republicans that voted to put the Budget Control Act in place, and it was Democrats and Republicans that voted to make sure that the 2012 budget came out the way it was. So while I think the rest of the world thanks the media and looks at us as huge failures, and certainly we could do better, at the end of the day when the chips are down, maybe at the last minute, we seem to be delivering. And it's up to the supercommittee to do the same. Right now they're charged with only coming up with another--``only,'' I say, relative terms--as a small business man, I can't believe I'm saying this, Reid, but only $1.2 trillion or $1.5 trillion. That's a hunk of money. But to solve this problem, according to the credit agencies, top economists in this country, think tanks and working groups from Simpson-Bowles, Rivlin-Domenici, Congressman Ryan's work, they've all indicated we have to do much more than that to change the trajectory of our country's financial future; and that's getting close to a $4 trillion change overall. We made a down payment. The committee is charged for doing only 1.2 or 1.5, but that's not enough. They have to double up their charge to get to at least $4 trillion or more in savings and revenues to close that gap. Right now we can argue--we probably have different opinions about where we want to be as far as how much debt we should hold, what's the right amount of deficit on an annual basis, but a lot of folks think if we get our debt down to 60 percent of GDP in the near term, going more later on without harming the recovery is the main question there, and also get our deficits down to 3 percent of GDP on an annual basis, that we will be in a much better spot, a spot where we will not get our credit downgraded by Moody's and Standard & Poor's and all these guys. So we have a lot of work to do, I think. And this committee is going to have to really go way beyond the natural divisions. This is not a simple exercise. Everybody's cut is someone else's sacred program. If I had a big defense base in my district, I would probably look at the Department of Defense a little bit differently. But I do think there's some opportunities in contracting and weapons procurement. I want to protect the men and women on the ground just like my colleague from Wisconsin does. But this is not enough. We have to look at the bigger cost drivers. And that's in our revenue system that's terribly broken. I'd point out another idea that's out there that I happen to subscribe to--it seems to get some horsepower in my town halls--is the Bowles-Simpson approach to tax reform. What they do is talk about changing the tax rates and the tax breaks. They get rid of all the tax breaks. That's a scary thought. We'd have a lot of people with lifetime employment trying to get those back, wouldn't we? Get rid of all those tax breaks and reduce everyone's tax rates. We give away so much in revenue that we can reduce the tax rates for every single income bracket and still put money on the table to pay down on our debt and maybe keep a couple of programs alive. Their proposal reduces on average the low-income tax rates from about 15 to 8 percent; the middle class from about 22 down to about 15 or so percent; and the higher income and corporate income taxes from about 36 to 39 percent down to about 28, somewhere in that range. If we went to a territorial tax system along with the individual changes--because I agree with my colleague you have to do individual and corporate together or it doesn't work for the reasons he talked about with an S corporation. I'm a small businessman, too, and I got taxed on stuff that I was paying principal on, that I was investing in. I didn't see it at my dinner table or in my personal bank account. So we've got to really fix the system. That's a great way to go. I guess I wouldn't advocate getting rid of all the tax breaks you probably had some defined amount in. But not a trillion dollars. Maybe something that goes away after 10 years. We pick things that actually make America more competitive, put us on an economic trend where we need to grow, and actually can grow, businesses and get businesses to make that investment that they're holding off on at this stage of the game.

Mr. SCHRADER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SCHRADER. I totally agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin. Far too often maybe I haven't done my duty and come down to the floor and spoke up with friends and colleagues across the aisle like we're doing here tonight. It gives the American people that watch C-SPAN or CNN or you name the show the idea that everyone is out here just for political gain and scoring their points. I think Wisconsin and Oregon folks can smell what is really honest discussion and what is just the talking points off the latest poll that you or I did last week. I think we've got to get past that. When I go back home, people are more concerned about, just get along. They're past the point almost, except for the extremes, in criticizing me or the work here. They just want us to start to get along and do what the gentleman from Wisconsin is talking about--and that's work together and recognize that you're not going to get all your way, I'm not going to get all my way. Your ideas are as valid as mine, and me talking to you for another 20 days on the floor isn't going to convince you that your ideas are all worthless. And I've got to get over that. I've got to recognize the fact this is a big country. What's good in Wisconsin may not be perfect for Oregon or Texas or Miami or San Francisco or New York, but it has a valid point. I think at this point in time it's ``put up or shut up'' time. This country is in a world of hurt not like I have ever seen in my lifetime. I hope never to see this again in my lifetime. I have got two young boys at home; one is out of a job, the other is trying to get a job. Just got out of college. I'm lucky my other kids actually have jobs right now. I thank the lucky stars. But it's a tough, tough environment out there. We don't want to end up like Greece. I guess that's the poster child for America to look at in a negative way. Greece, right now their debt is 150 percent of GDP. That's 150 percent, folks. That country is imploding as we speak. The European Union is trying to help bail them out. Well, what is going on? Actually, right now, Greece is scaling back its pensions dramatically, increasing property taxes significantly, and cutting income tax exemptions by 40 percent. That should have happened a while ago. Well, here's what they did a while ago. They already increased tax rates, raised excise taxes, and already had a reduction of 15 percent in public wages. This is going to be our country's future if we don't take the little steps now. They seem harsh, they seem tough. But as my colleague spoke very, very eloquently about, we've got to do some little things now. Everybody's ox has to be gored a little bit to be fair, but not so much that you end up throwing people out on the streets. We can make our Medicare and Social Security programs stronger. We can have a tax code that's more friendly to small business and makes us more competitive internationally going forward. We just have to have the courage to step up and do that. I, for one, am going to stand with my colleague from Wisconsin behind this supercommittee if they go big. If they just kick the can down the road by doing the $1.2 trillion minimal, what I need to do to get out of Dodge thing, I'm going to be critical. But if they actually are big and broad-thinking, realize their kids and their grandkids have a stake in this, and that the future of our country--we will end up a second- tier country. And that's not a dramatic statement. It is a fact. If we do not come up with a $4 trillion comprehensive approach overall, including the $900 billion we already put down, we will be downgraded significantly, I think, by every single major rating agency. China's currency will look a lot more attractive potentially than the U.S. dollar. If it looks like America is headed the way of the European Union, businessmen and -women are not going to be wanting to invest in America. They're going to invest anywhere else--India, China, Brazil, maybe even Russia. That's not a prospect that I want for my kids' future or my country's future. We have a lot at stake at this point in time. Failure is not an option. Failure is clearly not an option. I think we need to put aside partisanship, look at the big picture, and not poke each other in the eye. Look at the Senate the other day; right? Do you remember that? Here the Senate, we're coming back from our work period, and the Senate has two interesting votes. On the surface, both pieces have merit. One was--in my opinion anyway--let's do a deal where we help schoolkids have teachers, make sure we have first responders, but the way they pay for that is they poke the other party in the eye by saying, well, we're going to have this millionaires' tax. That is political rhetoric, folks. The next vote is a 3 percent withholding vote, which is part of the President's program to, frankly, get the onus of this potential tax off of businesses and contractors so they get back to working without having to pay the government money they don't have right now. But that's paid for with a 20 percent cut in domestic discretionary spending--poking the Democrats in the eye. That's not what this country should be about. That's an example of how to do it wrong, scoring political points. I'd like to think this next election--and, frankly, the future of this country--relies on people like my friend over here from Wisconsin that's willing to put that partisanship aside, look at the big picture, do what's right for the country, take the hits. I'm getting hit back home on my discussions, the stuff we're talking about, but I'm explaining to folks--and maybe I'm lucky, coming from Oregon. Folks are actually willing to listen a little bit. But I think most Americans are willing to listen if you have smart people like my colleague from Wisconsin willing to lay it out for you where it just makes sense. I thank my colleague.