Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3361, the Pension Protection Technical Corrections Act. Given the complexity and broad reach of the Tax Code and ERISA, and the difficult interactions between them, the measure before us is necessary to correct drafting and other errors in the Pension Protection Act of 2006.

Passage of the legislation will give certainty to plan administrators, individuals, as well as government regulators and ensure the intent of Congress is fully reflected in the governing statutes.

The technical corrections process is a complicated one which ensures all views are heard and which brings in experts from the relevant committees and Federal agencies.

In this case, it means that bipartisan staff from both the Ways & Means Committee and the Education & Labor Committee were joined by their counterparts from the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate HELP Committee as well as representatives from the Treasury and Labor Departments and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Led by the staff of the Joint Tax Committee, the technical corrections process gives all participants a chance to review proposed changes to ensure they reflect the intent of Congress and do not change the substance of the law itself.

There can be disagreements about what should and should not be considered technical. Each participant in the process has a veto. Thus, only items that were unanimously viewed as correcting a drafting mistake are included in the measure being debated today.

There is one item, called smoothing, that we viewed as a particularly important technical correction but is not included in this bill because one of the parties to the process said it was not technical. Regardless of whether smoothing is technical, it is extremely important and must be passed quickly. Given that smoothing was excluded from this bill, I urge that we take up a smoothing-only bill on suspension this week.

It is my understanding that the Joint Tax Committee will be publishing on their web page a complete summary of these items, and I encourage interested individuals to review it.

Two final observations, Mr. Speaker, on the differences between this bill and the version passed by the Senate in December.

First, since the Senate bill was passed, several additional technical items were identified, reviewed by the participants, and agreed to as being technical and conforming changes.

Second, the Senate-passed bill included smoothing and a second provision that is no longer relevant.

I hope that the Senate takes up the bill that we are passing today so that it can go to the President and be signed into law. I also hope that both houses quickly pass a smoothing-only bill.

Mr. Speaker, while hardly glamorous, the technical corrections process is an important one, providing clarity and certainty to plan administrators and the millions of Americans who rely on these plans to help provide a secure retirement.

I support passage of the bill.

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

Will the gentleman yield for a minute?

Just to be clear, it's my understanding that the minority side agrees with fixing the public pension problem along with the smoothing problem and consented to putting both of those in the bill, but the majority had rejected that offer.

If the gentleman would further yield, I would simply like to say that we in the minority are more than willing to work with the gentleman in the majority to include the smoothing in the public pension provision.

Just one more friendly view. If you recall, this was a bipartisan bill when this passed when we were in the majority.

First, Mr. Speaker, let me talk about a provision in here called New York Liberty Zone Tax Credits. I hope all the Members understand that a precedent is being made right here today.

What this bill does is it gives the New York City government and the New York State government the authority to take the withholding, the Federal tax withholding from their employees and not send the money to the Federal Government as every single other taxpayer in America is made to do, but rather keep that money and spend it on rail infrastructure. This sets up a whole new policy preference and precedent that I think we should be alarmed about.

But I have one question for the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee on this particular matter, and that is this. In Senate Report 110-228, the director of the Joint Committee on Taxation to the chairman of the Finance Committee says that this provision constitutes a tax earmark given that it only goes to two taxpayers. So in light of the fact that the head of the Joint Committee on Taxation has specified in the Senate that this is a tax earmark, yet the chairman has certified in this bill that there are no tax earmarks contained in this legislation, could the chairman answer me: How does one reconcile the fact that in this bill under the joint tax definition there is a tax earmark, yet the chairman certifies that there are no earmarks in this bill?

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from New York to answer the question. Just a brief yield, though.

With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to attack a provision. I am simply trying to get an understanding of what seems like something that is not reconciled.

If I could just interject for a second, there are a few more points I would like to make on my time. With all due respect, I would like to keep this brief.

Reclaiming my time, and with all due respect, I am simply trying to manage my time efficiently here.

Reclaiming my time, the administration does earmarks in their budgets. That it is in the President's budget does not mean this is or is not an earmark.

So am I correct in understanding that irrespective of the fact that the Joint Committee on Taxation defines this as an earmark, that the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee has chosen to supersede that ruling and claim that this is not in his filing in the bill; is that correct?

Okay. So the chairman has decided that that's an incorrect opinion?

So the chairman does not believe this is not an earmark, even though it goes to just two tax beneficiaries?

Okay.

I thank the chairman for yielding. That was enlightening. I think we're just going to agree to disagree on this one. I think that this looks like a tax earmark, and we ought to call it that, regardless of the merits of the policy.

Two other quick points, Mr. Chairman. We've been hearing this rhetoric about tax subsidies to big oil companies. It's almost as if the Republican Congress decided to give a big tax break to just a couple of oil companies. What is this policy we're looking at?

A few years ago, we decided we wanted to do something to stop jobs from being pushed overseas. We wanted to do something to help American manufacturers keep jobs here in America. So

what did we do? We said, if you make or produce something in America, you will pay lower taxes here in America than if you make it overseas. We're going to reward you with lower taxes, all manufacturers, if you make it here in America than if you ship jobs overseas and make it overseas.

And so what is the majority doing? The majority is saying, well, okay, but not for the oil and gas industry. We're going to separate out the oil and gas industry and make them pay these higher overseas tax rates.

This was not a targeted tax benefit to one industry. This was a policy to help bring back manufacturing jobs in America. And so to call this a tax subsidy to just the oil industry, number one, is incorrect. But number two, the effect of this policy will do three things: this is going to raise the price of gasoline, this is going to push more jobs overseas, and most of all it's going to make us more dependent on foreign oil.

We ought to pass an energy policy that makes us less dependent on foreign oil, not more dependent on foreign oil. Unfortunately, that is exactly what this bill does.

The last and final point is this, Mr. Speaker. We are sitting in this bill picking winners and losers in the marketplace. Rather than investing in basic research, rather than investing in the ideas of tomorrow that have yet to be spawned, we are simply saying, today's technology is going to be subsidized; we're going to pick you as a winner and you as a loser, and we are going to do so at the expense of tomorrow's ideas.

It's bad policy. It makes us more dependent on foreign oil. I think we should vote this bill down.

Madam Speaker, I was absent for legislative business conducted on February 12, 2008, due to inclement weather. As a result, I missed rollcall votes 43-45.

Had I been present, I would have voted: ``aye'' on rollcall vote 43-- H. Res. 954, honoring the life of senior Border Patrol agent Luis A. Aguilar who lost his life in the line of duty near Yuma, Arizona, on January 19, 2008; ``aye'' on rollcall vote 44--H. Res. 909, commemorating the courage of the Haitian soldiers that fought for American independence in the ``Siege of Savannah'' and for Haiti's independence and renunciation of slavery; and ``aye'' on rollcall vote 45--H. Con. Res. 238, celebrating the birth of Abraham Lincoln and recognizing the prominence the Declaration of Independence played in the development of Abraham Lincoln's beliefs.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 29, H. Res. 867, commending the Houston Dynamos for winning the 2007 Major League Soccer Cup, I was absent due to inclement weather grounding flights in Wisconsin.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 30, H. Res. 942, recognizing the significance of Black History Month, I was absent due to inclement weather grounding flights from Wisconsin.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 31, H. Res. 943, remembering the space shuttle Challenger disaster and honoring its crew members, who lost their lives on January 28, 1986. I was absent due to inclement weather grounding flights from Wisconsin.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``Aye''.

Madam Speaker, let's just say what we're doing here. What this bill does is it prevents a tax increase. Now, we have different philosophies and we have different ideas on how to keep America moving forward between Republicans and Democrats, the minority and the majority.

What the majority is doing right here is they are waiving their own budget rules. They came in promising a new pay-as-you-go system, and here they go, as soon as the going gets tough, waive PAYGO.

I find it interesting that never during the course of this debate this year did the majority ever propose to reduce spending to offset this. They only proposed raising taxes. But here we are on the eve of the end of the year, preventing 19 million additional taxpayers from paying this tax increase.

Let's look at where we were at the beginning of this year.

Speaker Pelosi: ``After years of historic deficits, this new Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay as you go.''

The majority leader, and I think he will be consistent and vote against this particular bill: ``Our budget strictly adheres to the pay- as-you-go budget rules that were reinstated in January by the new majority.''

Our distinguished chairman of the committee: ``You've got to offset those tax cuts.'' So on and so forth.

Well, here we are and we are going to pass this by waiving PAYGO.

Now let me make it very clear, I disagree with the majority's PAYGO. The majority's PAYGO says let's just keep raising taxes. Well, two wrongs don't make a right.

This tax was never meant to be. This is a new tax increase on top of the Tax Code. It was never intended in the first place. This ought to be repealed, period. So I don't agree with this notion that this tax increase ought to just be replaced with some other tax increase, and that's the majority's position. They want the revenue from the alternative minimum tax, they just don't want to raise it through that tax so they have a different tax increase. That is bad economic policy.

At a time when economists are telling us we might be headed for a recession, at a time when they are saying a slowdown is on the horizon, the last thing the American people and the economy need is a tax increase. That's why this is an important bill. We have big tax increases on the horizon.

The distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee is proposing an enormous tax increase, $3.5 trillion. They are proposing to get rid of all of those tax cuts that got us out of recession in 2003 in the first place, and they are proposing not to repeal the AMT but to replace it with even higher taxes on workers and small businesses. That is the wrong economic recipe for America. The right one is keep taxes where they are and control spending.

Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

When a Member makes a motion to suspend the rules pursuant to clause 1 of rule XIV, is clause 10 of rule XXI, the PAYGO rule, suspended and thereby waived?

Does the motion to suspend waive the PAYGO rule as well, then?

Including PAYGO?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Committee on Appropriations for addressing language contained in the House State, Foreign Operations Committee Report regarding funding of recreational, sport

and trophy hunting in its assistance programs in Africa. The language included in the Manager's Statement accompanying the Omnibus Appropriations Legislation offers USAID the opportunity to come before the Committee and explain the need for these important conservation programs to continue. I support this effort and commend the Committee on this language.

I urge USAID to take advantage of this opportunity to come before the Committee and explain the benefits of these valuable projects as directed by the Manager's Statement. Conservation projects have made great contributions to wildlife management and have a great story to tell. The CAMPFIRE and the LIFE Plus Projects in Africa are just two examples of successful conservation programs involving controlled, regulated sport and trophy hunting that economically supports tribal systems in many areas of Africa. Without programs like these, millions of acres of properly managed conservation areas would fall prey to poachers, eliminating the economic value these lands provide.

Additionally, tourist hunting has proven to be a valuable tool for conserving wildlife and habitat for particularly threatened species such as the African elephant, white and black rhino, leopard, markhor, argali and others. Licensed, regulated tourist hunting provides tens of millions of dollars for the operating budgets of foreign wildlife departments, significantly reduces poaching, and creates incentives for local inhabitants to perpetuate biodiversity on hundreds of millions of acres where it is needed beyond the borders of protected areas. Without these programs, animals in this environment would be killed for food, over-hunted, and poached, placing the continued survival of these species in serious jeopardy.

The facts are that in the twenty-three African countries that allow licensed, regulated hunting, approximately 18,500 hunters generate over $200 million annually in remote rural areas. These conservation programs are extremely important to African tribal culture, not to mention the survival of the many animal species they protect worldwide. While I cannot support the overall bill, I thank the Appropriations Committee for recognizing this flaw in the Committee Report on H.R. 2764 and speaking to it appropriately in the Omnibus Legislation's accompanying Manager's Statement.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First, I'd like to associate myself with the chairman's comments in recognizing Frank Cushing and his accomplishments and wishing him well in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that's 3,565 pages. Yes, I'm seeing that it was printed on one side, but this is the bill that was handed to us by the majority staff in the Rules Committee. It's their bill. They printed it for us, 34.4 pounds.

This bill has, we think, 9,200 earmarks in it. We believe hundreds of these earmarks were air-dropped, never seen before in the House, never seen before in the Senate, brand new, just delivered right here on this House floor. We received this bill today. We'll be voting on this bill in about 10 minutes.

This bill takes $10 million from border security to commit $10 million of taxpayer funds to hire defense attorneys for illegal immigrants. We don't know exactly how they do that, but that's in here.

The point is, Mr. Speaker, this is a bad day for this House. This is a bad day for the fiscal policy of this country. We are about to vote on a bill that commits about $515 billion in spending, 3,500 pages long, 9,200 earmarks, many we've never seen before; and we're

going to vote on this in about 10 minutes, and we'll have had less than 1-hour debate on the entire measure.

This is no way to run a railroad, Mr. Speaker, and sadly, it has been run like this in the past. The new day we were promised with the new majority, in fact, is not a new day. Unfortunately, it's like days of old.

I'm very pleased that the number did not go up to where the majority wanted it to go, an extra $23 billion, which would have brought another $196 billion of deficit spending into the budget. Thankfully we're at that lower number; but when you look at this process, when you look at what's in this bill, as we are just getting through this bill, this bill should be defeated; and I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I thank her for her leadership on this.

As we take a look at this bill that just passed the House not 20 minutes ago, I think it is important to know what is in this piece of legislation. This piece of legislation weighs about the same amount of weight as my 4-year-old son does. This piece of legislation is 3,565 pages. It is 9,200-plus earmarks, 300 of which we just found out about today.

This bill costs $515 billion. This bill does a lot for a lot of Federal workers in the holiday season. It makes sure that all those Federal workers working at all the different government agencies have their budget for the year.

But what this bill does not do going into this holiday season, it does not give those soldiers in Iraq fighting for our freedom on the frontline of the war on terror, it does not give them one penny. It does not give them 1 minute's worth of comfort so that they have the resources, the tools, the body armor, the bullets, the gasoline, the rations, the support that they need to keep us safe and to fulfill our mission in fighting the war on terror where the epicenter is in Iraq.

It is a shame that we spend all of this time putting all of this money, all of this pork for all of these government agencies, making sure that bureaucrats here in Washington are comforted during this Christmas season, but not a penny to support our troops in harm's way in Iraq. That is a shame.

What is also a shame is this bill was dropped on the table today and passed today. Not a single Member of Congress read this entire bill; yet it passed and is on its way to becoming law.

It is also a shame that it is putting our Nation on a dangerous fiscal path. It is the beginning of the week, and we are going to put 10,000 earmarks into law. At the end of the week, we will pass more legislation that will cost billions more. I am worried we may not actually patch the AMT because the majority here is insisting on having permanent tax increases to pay for that.

So while we have already seen the delay in Congress is costing people a 2-month delay in their refund checks from the IRS, if this Congress keeps on the track they are on, they will raise taxes on millions of Americans and businesses just to try to provide for a temporary prevention of a tax increase on 19 million additional taxpayers, 19 million taxpayers who already, because of this delay, will see a delay in their refunds.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a good moment for the fiscal policy of our country. This is not a proud day for the House of Representatives to thump a 34-pound, 3,565-page bill on the desk and vote it out. But worst of all, it is not a good day for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who are in the fight, who are on the front lines, who want our support, who deserve our support. That should have been taken care of before any single Member of Congress got their pork. Unfortunately, it wasn't, and that is what passed the House here this evening.

I see we are joined by several other colleagues who want to make comments on this. We have leaders here in the House of Representatives on fiscal conservatism, on fiscal responsibility, and I thank the gentlewoman who is controlling the time and thank her for her tireless leadership.

Madam Speaker, I was absent for legislative business conducted on December 11, 2007, due to inclement weather grounding flights from Wisconsin. As a result, I missed rollcall votes 1142 through 1144.

Had I been present, I would have voted:

`Aye'' on rollcall vote 1142--H. Res. 842, Expressing sympathy to and pledging the support of the House of Representatives and the people of the United States for the victims of Cyclone Sidr in southern Bangladesh.

``Aye'' on rollcall vote 1143--H. Res. 847, Recognizing the importance of Christmas.

``Aye'' on rollcall vote 1144--H.R. 4343, The Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act.

Let me put this in context. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished Speaker of the House came to the floor and said, we're providing tax relief for people. No, we're not. This isn't tax relief. What this bill attempts to do is prevent a tax increase, so nobody is seeing their taxes lowered under this bill. That's point number one.

But point number two is this is a new precedent that is being established here. What is this new precedent? This tax, the alternative minimum tax, is a mistake. It was never intended to be. Everybody acknowledges that. It was designed to get 155 really rich people in 1969, to make them pay taxes. It was never designed to tax 23 million people in the middle class this year. So we agree in Congress this shouldn't exist. Let's get rid of it. In all preceding Congresses we've said, let's not get new people caught up into this trap, and just be done with it.

The new precedent that is occurring here today is, the majority says, while we may not like this tax itself, we want that money. We may not like this way of taxing it, but we sure want this money coming into the Federal Government. And that's the new precedent that is occurring today which is an endorsement of this tax increase, a endorsement in acceptance, a wanting of this new and higher tax revenue.

What does that do? That brings us to a whole new size of government. What we have had in the last 40 years is the Federal Government has taxed the U.S. economy at 18.3 percent. That's the 40-year average. That's how much Washington takes out of the U.S. economy.

With this tax in place, with this new alternative minimum tax, that takes us up to an unprecedented level of government spending and taxing to 24 percent. What the majority is doing is putting us on this path of ever higher levels of taxation, even higher than during World War II. Why are they doing this? To spend more money.

There is a difference in philosophy here, Mr. Speaker. There's a basic philosophical difference. My good friend, who's a good man from Massachusetts will say, well, they're just borrowing to do this. We say, let's address entitlements. Let's focus on spending and keep taxes low.

They say, we don't want this tax but we want this money so we're going to raise some other permanent tax to get it into the government.

Here's the difference. Our priority is the taxpayer comes first, government second. Their priority is government comes first, the taxpayer is second. The government's in the front of the line. The taxpayer gets stuck with the tab.

We're saying the American families are taxed enough. They're paying enough in taxes. Because, you know what, we've got to watch it. We've got to make sure that we're competitive in the 21st century. We've got to make sure that we can keep jobs in America. And if we put ourselves on this path of unprecedented levels of taxation, we will lose our greatness in this century. We will sever that legacy of giving the next generation a higher standard of living, and we will be unable to compete with the likes of China and India

if we buy into this notion of ever higher taxes. That's why we should oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about one particular provision in this bill which really puzzles me, and that is the tax earmark that's in this bill. This bill creates forestry conservation tax credit bonds. Sounds pretty innocent on its face. But reading through the language, the provision has little to do with forestry, and didn't appear to require the protection of a single tree. Rather, it's nominally about protecting fish.

Specifically, to qualify for the tax credit bond program, the parcel of land to be purchased must be adjacent to the Forest Service land; have a portion of that land turned over to the U.S. Forest Service; include at least 40,000 total acres, and must be subject to a ``native fish habitat conservation plan approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.''

Well, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service, there is only one piece of land in America that meets this description. It's a piece of land in Montana owned by a timber giant, Plum Creek. And according to press reports, they intend to sell it to the Nature Conservancy, which can get the $500 million in bonds, who could give that $500 million, buy it from Plum Creek, turn around and sell it to landowners, for all we know. If this isn't a tax earmark, I don't know what is.

But the point is, this is a tax earmark. And why is it possible to add this provision which is a tax earmark?

Well, the anti-earmark rules that we have here in the House only apply to conference reports and bills.

What are we considering today? Technically, it's an amendment to the Senate bill which was an amendment to the original House-passed bill. So the earmark rules we have are thrown out the window. No earmark rules apply here. That's how you can sneak this provision in, a $500 million tax earmark provision to go to one private landowner.

Again, we can't be exactly sure what the deal here is because the bill just got released. We don't know who asked for this provision or exactly how it will be used, but at the very least, serious questions ought to be raised about such an expensive provision dropped into this bill to benefit one particular landowner.

In addition to that, this bill may not technically violate PAYGO, but it sure does violate the spirit of PAYGO. It uses timing shifts and other budget gimmicks to violate PAYGO. For this and many other reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise to mark the 46th anniversary of independence for the United Republic of Tanzania, and to congratulate the leaders and citizens of that great Nation for all that they have achieved.

It's impossible to talk about Tanzania's history and development without remembering the Nation's founder and first president, Julius Nyerere. Mwalimu, or ``Teacher,'' as he was affectionately known, was a great man among African leaders of his time. He dedicated his life to building a sense of national identity and unity. He wanted his countrymen to think of themselves as Tanzanians first and foremost, and not to set themselves apart because of their religion or ethnicity. Nearly a half century later, it is clear that his dream is alive and well.

We should also commend Tanzania's president, Jakaya Kikwete, for all of his efforts to carry on the good work of Mwalimu and other Tanzanian leaders. From his leadership of Tanzania's National Testing Campaign for HIV/AIDS to his calls for greater transparency in government and an end to corruption, President Kikwete has tirelessly dedicated himself to a brighter future for his country and his people.

As Tanzania enters its 47th year of independence on December 9, 2007, let us celebrate Tanzania's legacy of peace and stability, thank Tanzania for its close friendship with the United States, and pledge ourselves to work closely with President Kikwete and his people as they move boldly into the future.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we're setting a precedent here. This is new policy that we are embarking on here. And let me tell you what this means. We have always in the past done what we call a patch for the AMT. We have always said let's not let the alternative minimum tax hit all these new taxpayers. Let's prevent that tax increase from happening. Well, what is now happening is the majority is saying, instead of having this tax increase, let's have some other tax increase. That's what their PAYGO rule does.

PAYGO does not mean let's live within our means, but let's expand government's growth, let's raise taxes. And 73 percent of all of the pay-fors for the bills that have come to this Congress this year have been paid for with either budget gimmicks or tax increases. That's right. Of all the wish lists of spending that the majority has brought to the floor, 73 percent of those things were either budget gimmicks or tax increases.

This is a tax increase. What this is, is saying you cannot come to the floor of this Congress and prevent this new future tax increase; so we're going to make another tax increase. If you want to stop this tax increase, you've got to raise taxes. You just simply can't stop the tax increase.

Now, why are we doing this? You've got to remember, Mr. Speaker, that the AMT in 1969, when it was written, was to stop 155 multimillionaires from escaping taxes. That was the idea. No one, no one ever intended it to be what it is today. It was a mistake. No one planned the alternative minimum tax to tax 23 million people in the middle class this year. No one said let's tax 30 million people in 3 years, but that's what this does. The majority's budget includes it. The majority's budget plans for it. And more important than that, Mr. Speaker, the majority is saying we may not want the alternative minimum tax, but we want that tax revenue. And that is the dangerous precedent that is being set here.

This chart shows you where the majority is trying to head with taxes in America on families and businesses and entrepreneurs. The blue line shows you our average. For the last 40 years, the Federal Government has had to tax about 18.3 percent of our economy to run the Federal Government. We have had good economic growth. We've been the world's leading economic superpower. We have been the world's superpower. And we have done this by taxing our economy at about 18.3 percent. What the majority is trying to do is take us to an all new high.

There are only three times in our Nation's history where we have ever exceeded taxing our Federal economy by 20 percent. Two of those were during World War II. And the majority wants not only to tax us at 20 percent; they want us to go up to 21 percent and then on up to 24 percent with this tax plan. This is a down payment on the majority's planned and intended and budgeted-for $3.5 trillion tax increase over the next 10 years.

And here is what is wrong with that: not only is it morally wrong to take more and more money out of people's paychecks, by taking more of their freedom and sending it to Washington, but what is really wrong is that it lowers our standard of living. And that is what is at issue here.

For the last 15 years, we have watched Europe go down this dangerous path. If you take a look at the majority's plan to bring us to this ever-higher level of taxation, add the State government, and we are on our way to taxing 35 percent of GDP. That is where the countries of Europe are.

And what did Europe achieve over the last 15 years? Their per capita of GDP, our main measurement of standard of living, is a quarter less than ours. Their standard of living is 25 percent less than the American standard of living. Their unemployment rate averages 9 percent; ours is half that.

So if we want to go down the road of stagnation, of high unemployment, of a lower standard of living, vote for this bill. Put us on this path.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

That is exactly the point, Mr. Speaker.

At a time when Europe is telling us don't follow us down this path, look at the unemployment, look at the welfare dependency. We have got to get out of this.

We are following them. We're going into the hole they've dug for themselves that they are trying to get out of. That is the majority's plan. That's a dangerous plan. They are saying you can't even bring a bill to the floor unless it raises taxes. That's what PAYGO means. That's wrong. This is the down payment on a $3.5 trillion tax increase on every American income tax payer. That's wrong.

Mr. Speaker, this is a difference between our two parties. This is a difference between our philosophies. We believe the genius of America is the individual, the family, the entrepreneur, not government, not Washington, not elites here trying to spend your hard-earned tax dollars. That is the difference. We believe we should keep government lean and we should keep government doing what it should be doing and not ever growing its role because when we do that, we sap the strength of the American entrepreneur, of our economy.

We need to give our children the gift that our parents gave us, and that is a higher standard of living. And we are at risk of severing that legacy, Mr. Speaker.