Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) for the purpose of closing.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I have a few points. Number one, I am looking through the bill, the motion to recommit here. There is no 6-year plan in here. There is no 6-year highway project plan in here. They may have proposed one, but it is not being offered here today. All this bill does is the stop corporate expatriation and invest in America's infrastructure, but there is no invest in America's infrastructure here, just the tax increase. Let's speak to that. We have heard speaker after speaker after speaker here from the other side of the aisle say: You are getting away from gas taxes to fund highways, to fund infrastructure. What does this do? This isn't a gas tax increase. So you are moving away from the user fee principle yourself in your own rhetoric. Let's speak to the substance of this particular proposal. This proposal will do a couple of things. Number one, it will encourage foreign companies to buy U.S. companies. You might as well say this is the Buy American Company Act of 2015. Number two, it will encourage U.S. corporate headquarters to move overseas. Don't take my word for it. That is the characterization of this bill by the Senate Democratic Policy chair, the senior Senator from New York, who has said this policy will encourage U.S. headquarters to be moved overseas. Inversions are bad. We want to stop inversions. But to quote the Treasury Secretary of the other side's party, the way to stop inversions is tax reform. Why are we here doing this patch? So that we can give ourselves the time to do tax reform, to do international tax reform, so that we can prevent inversions. That is the whole purpose of this episode that we are having here. So not only is this really bad policy, it doesn't work. It won't affect what they are trying to do. If you want to stop inversions, you have got to do tax reforms. Adding more obstacles to U.S. companies doesn't stop U.S. companies from moving. It simply says that they are more ripe for takeovers by foreign companies. There is a very dangerous trend, Mr. Speaker, of foreign companies buying U.S. companies. It is happening at an alarming pace. If this were to pass, it would accelerate that pace. And the way that this is written, it would say: If you have your headquarters in America, as an American company, you had better move them overseas. Why would we want to do that? The real solution is tax reform, make America more competitive and make America the place you want to have your corporate headquarters. Let's have American companies buy foreign companies instead of the other way around. That is what we should be doing. Let's just have a little truth in advertising here. This doesn't stop inversions. This accelerates American companies being bought by foreign companies. It accelerates American headquarters going overseas, and it doesn't fund anything for the next 6 years. So with that and many other reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on this motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise to speak in favor of this. Here is basically what we are trying to do: We want to get to a long-term highway solution. We believe that, for the sake of jobs, the economy, certainty, planning big projects in our States, we want to do a multiyear highway bill, and typically a multiyear highway bill means a 6-year bill. That is our aspiration and our goal. We know we are not going to write that bill in the next 2 weeks. We know we need at least 2 or 3 months to write that bill. Unfortunately, the highway trust fund has a fiscal shortfall in 2 weeks, so we are here to extend the highway trust fund through December 18 to give us the time we need to put together a multiyear solution. That costs $8 billion just to do that. What we use are revenue compliance measures to make it easier for people to file their taxes, effectively, and some spending savings to get the $8 billion. Not a single fee increase, not a single tax increase is in this bill to finance the extension of the highway trust fund solvency to December 18. For example, TSA fees, TSA fees are not being increased. They are staying exactly the same as they are, so nobody getting on an airplane will see anything different. The difference is we keep those fees going to mandatory spending. We keep those fees going to where they are instead of going into discretionary spending where they can be spent in addition to other spending. So by walling off that money so Congress can't go spend it somewhere else, we save money by doing that. Things like this are what we do. Savings for the taxpayer, tax compliance, easier to comply with your taxes, making sure that fees don't get spent in other areas are some important fiscal savings that we have to make sure that we can extend the solvency of the highway trust fund. Now, the other point I would simply make is we believe that we have a chance of writing a big multiyear bill. That is why we are seeking this extension. If we didn't think that we had the chance and the opportunity on a bicameral, bipartisan basis to do a 6-year highway funding bill, then we would just do a 2-year bill like the other body is attempting to do. We think we can do a multiyear bill. We think there are ways of doing it, such as incorporating it with international tax reform, things that are important for the economy, things that are important for our businesses. We think that is an opportunity, and that is something that we are exploring on a bipartisan basis. So for that reason and many others, I urge adoption of this. I think it makes sense. Where I come from in Wisconsin, the way we say it is: We have two seasons--road construction season and winter. The last thing we want to do is see road construction stop at the beginning of August. We need to give our construction, our highways, our people who are filling these construction projects a little certainty, at least get into the winter so they can finish the building season while we work out a long-term highway solution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Michigan has more speakers than I do, so if it is all right with him, why don't a few of the speakers on his side of the aisle go first.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the gentleman from Chicago. As a person who represents the State line and drives to O'Hare every week, back and forth, I want to add to the comment. They are in the middle of road construction right now on I-90 going to Chicago. If we don't pass this bill, construction projects like that will stop. By the way, we need more construction in the Chicagoland area, just like we do around the rest of America. That is why we have to pass this. I think the gentleman from Illinois hit it right, which is, yes, we knew this was coming; but it takes a while to figure out how to do things like rewrite international tax laws, something we haven't done for decades. It takes a while to figure out how to come up with long- term financing of something like a highway trust fund. We know that we cannot come up with that answer within the next 2 weeks. We don't want to see these construction projects like the really important one on I-90 and I-94 going to O'Hare--and everywhere else in America--stop in 2 weeks. That is why this is necessary. We don't like patches anymore than anybody else does, but this patch is necessary to make sure that those projects don't stop. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I will spare the cliches and just simply say I think this is important that we get this done. Both parties have patched this trust fund for, as the gentleman said, 10 years. Part of the problem we have right now, Mr. Speaker, is the revenue source for highways is a revenue source that is no longer relevant, that doesn't work anymore. Gas taxes don't work well. Why? There is a good reason why. We get much better gas mileage. Our engine technology is better. Some cars don't even use gas. They are electric, and therefore, as a result, we don't pay as much for the highways we use, and that is the problem. So we are trying to figure out what is a way we can bridge finance the highway trust fund so that we can come up with a new revenue source for the long term. That means we have to have a medium term, a 6-year highway bill to make sure that the construction that we need to get done gets done, and that is going to take us some time to figure this out. That is why we need to have this patch to give us that time, because if we fail to pass this extension right now, then I can, sure as day, tell you what will come over from the other body will be a medium, about an 18-month extension, and that will come through here, and we will not get the bridge we need. We will not get the ability to give multiyear projects the ability to plan and get off the ground, and we will not have done our jobs. So in order to give us a chance to do our jobs, to get the long-term solution in place, to work on these big issues, we need to get ourselves a few more months' time. That is why I think, on a bipartisan basis, Members understand and appreciate this situation and therefore will, hopefully, support this. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the reservation of the point of order.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 984) to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide Medicare beneficiary access to eye tracking accessories for speech generating devices and to remove the rental cap for durable medical equipment under the Medicare Program with respect to speech generating devices.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on S. 984, currently under consideration.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in favor of the Steve Gleason Act. This bill would expand access to life-changing equipment called SGDs, otherwise known as speech-generating devices. People with severe diseases like ALS or Parkinson's need these devices to communicate. They often add SGDs as accessories to their wheelchairs. Now, for a long time, Medicare has covered their wheelchairs and these devices and people have been able to buy SGDs so they can customize their devices. There is one device that I have seen that is just incredible. It is called an eye-gaze. It allows someone to use one's eyes to actually navigate a computer and hit the mouse click to do things like turn on the TV, go on the phone, speech communication, everything. It is just incredible, but there is a problem. Two years ago CMS changed the policy. Before, you could buy this and you could add an upgrade to it. CMS changed the policy, and seniors now have to rent an SGD for 13 months before they can buy it. What is worse, Medicare will stop making these rental payments if a senior citizen makes an upgrade that is not directly related to speech. As you also know, Mr. Speaker, not just seniors go on Medicare. People with certain disabilities as well are allowed to go on Medicare; so this affects people of all ages. This change is so sweeping that Medicare is refusing to pay for things like an eye-gaze, the very thing that patients need in order to use their SGDs. This bill would remove the 13-month rental requirement so as to allow seniors to buy their SGDs immediately. It would also make sure that Medicare continues to cover SGDs if they are entering nursing homes. The people who need these devices are truly the most disabled and most vulnerable among us. The whole point of Medicare is to protect these very patients and to give them the care that they need. And this bill goes to the heart of Medicare's mission. It goes to the heart of fixing a flaw that I think everybody recognizes needs to be fixed. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), our distinguished Conference chair.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), another senior member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on S. 971, currently under consideration.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), the author of this bill and a member of the Ways and Means Committee, for the purpose of describing this bill.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 971) to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for an increase in the limit on the length of an agreement under the Medicare independence at home medical practice demonstration program.