Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I submit this statement to honor the distinguished life and career of Congressman Philip M. Crane. I was fortunate enough to serve with Phil not only in the House but also on the Ways and Means Committee. He was in his third decade of public service when I was just starting out, and so I considered Phil a role model. While in Congress, Phil shaped several trade agreements as chairman of the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee. He also helped to found the Republican Study Committee, of which I am a proud member. Outside of Congress, Phil was a loving husband and father, an accomplished scholar, and a proud veteran. Phil was an exceptional leader, and his legacy will serve as an inspiration for conservatives and all public servants for generations to come.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, this continuing resolution (H.J. Res. 124) ensures that there will be no government shutdown and that the men and women of America's armed forces and diplomatic service will have the resources they need in Afghanistan and beyond to protect the nation from the dangers of terrorism. This resolution continues funding on a temporary basis at fiscal year 2014 levels, but it does not provide the final, full-year spending levels for the government. For war-related spending, the resolution provides for an interim rate of spending that is over $26 billion more than the President's June 26, 2014 amended request for these purposes for fiscal year 2015. At this stage, there is a great deal of uncertainty about the precise needs for these activities. The Budget Committee has jurisdiction over the use of the statutory authority that permits for spending in excess of the discretionary caps for funding designated for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism. On a bipartisan basis, the Budget Committee has expressed concern that the OCO/GWOT budget has been misused by both this Administration and the previous Administration. In addition, Congress has generally gone along with using these funds for purposes outside of OCO/GWOT requirements. The Committee highlighted this concern in the report accompanying the FY 2015 budget resolution. While I support this interim funding measure and want to ensure our armed forces have the resources they need for these purposes, together with the Committee's ranking Democratic member Mr. Van Hollen, I will work to ensure that the final full-year appropriation for these purposes funds only those requirements that are closely related to the incremental, non-enduring costs of our overseas engagement in Afghanistan and the broader Middle East.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) ignored the clear Congressional intent of the Bipartisan Budget Act (P.L. 113-67) (BBA) and began collecting aviation security fees beyond the round-trip limitation that has existed since the Aviation Security Act of 2001. TSA had every opportunity to work with Congress to adjust the fee collection structure, but they unfortunately chose to ignore both the intent of the BBA and the concerns of individual members. H.R. 5462 re-institutes the round-trip cap through statute, ensuring that passengers will not be made to pay a security fee in excess of what is authorized by Congress. Because the Congressional Budget Office has updated its baseline projection to incorporate TSA's incorrect implementation of the BBA, H.R. 5462 has a cost. However, passage of the bill will return security fee receipts to the level originally estimated by the CBO upon passage of the BBA. I thank my colleague, Mr. Hudson, for introducing this bill and I fully support its passage.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today, I missed rollcall vote 496. Had I been present, I would have cast the following vote: rollcall 496--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass--``yes.''

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today, I voted in favor of H.R. 5230 because it strengthens our security on the southern border and relieves this humanitarian crisis. This legislation fixes the 2008 law to ensure that a speedy process returns these children safely and swiftly to their homes. It also provides the resources necessary for states and the National Guard to end the immediate problems on the border. Additionally, I voted in favor of H.R. 5272 because the Constitution demanded it. This administration cannot simply pick and choose which laws they would like to enforce and which they would like to ignore. My position is clear that I believe we have a broken immigration system and I support reforms that secure our borders, fix our legal immigration system, and address those here unlawfully. However, these reforms should be done through Congress, not executive orders that stretch the authority granted by the Constitution. Additionally, the President's Executive Order attempts to treat a symptom, but not the root of the problem, and it has undoubtedly contributed to the current humanitarian crisis along our southern border. We need to pass laws to fix our immigration system if we want to solve this problem once and for all.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Transportation reports that the Highway Trust Fund will be unable to fully fund critical, ongoing highway programs as soon as August. This crisis stems from a fundamental mismatch between trust fund revenues and highway program spending that predates enactment of the last surface transportation reauthorization that Congress enacted. Since 2008, Congress has bailed out the Highway Trust Fund with more than $54 billion in transfers. H.R. 5021 provides the necessary funds to keep the federal highway and transit programs running while Congress develops legislation to set these programs on a sound financial footing for the long term. I look forward to working with my colleagues to address the systematic factors that have been driving the Highway Trust Fund's bankruptcy. Importantly, this bill follows a House budget rule that requires general fund transfers to the trust fund to be fully offset. It should not become a recurring practice for taxpayers to bail out the highway and transit programs because Congress and the President are unable to make the changes necessary to avoid future trust fund insolvency. My primary concern is with using pension smoothing as an offset. Based on CBO scoring, the bill produces ten-year savings through changing pension law, but these changes will likely be more than offset by greater federal obligations in the future. Ultimately, allowing additional smoothing now increases future liabilities for the taxpayer guarantee of private-sector pensions. In addition, we are increasingly using 10 years of savings to offset one year of costs as this bill does. It is progress to offset these costs, but we need to be reducing spending and deficits and when we increase spending, we should be offsetting the cost in as short a timeframe as possible. Again, I look forward to working with my colleagues on legislation that will set the Highway Trust Fund on a sustainable path going forward, so that we can avoid the kind of stop-gap legislation we are considering today.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, the Veteran Access to Care Act of 2014 is critical to ensuring that our nation's veterans have timely access to quality health care. Recent reports from the VA's internal audits have revealed that thousands of veterans are still waiting for their first medical appointments at VA medical centers after waiting for at least 90 days. This is much longer than the agency's wait-time policy of 14 days or less. And it is simply unacceptable. Further, the VA inspector general has confirmed that VA medical centers were deliberately hiding treatment delays and waiting times to make it seem that they were meeting the agency's wait-time goals. The Veteran Access to Care Act would address the wait-time issue by allowing veterans to receive private-sector health care if they have waited longer than the Veterans Health Administration's wait-time targets or if they reside more than 40 miles from the nearest VA medical facility or community-based outpatient clinic. The Access to Care Act gives the secretary authority to enter into contracts with non-Department medical facilities to provide health care to veterans and, if the secretary is unable to provide timely health-care access using contracted care, the act provides authority for the secretary to reimburse any non-Department medical facility for health care provided to a veteran. Funding for implementing this act will come from funds that have already been appropriated, or will in the future be appropriated, to the Veterans Health Administration for medical services in the normal course of the discretionary appropriations process. This bill provides no new budget authority to the Department of Veterans Affairs and does not violate the budget enforcement regime.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, the principles in the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA, Title V of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) provide a long-established structure for the budgetary treatment of federal credit programs. Unlike cash accounting, FCRA prescribes accounting principles that consider costs over the life of a loan or loan guarantee rather than just the cash flows in any given year. Unless there is a clear statutory exemption, the federal government's credit programs, e.g. the Federal Housing Administration's single-family mortgage program and the Department of Education's student loan programs, are budgeted for using FCRA methodology. The Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014 (Subtitle C of Title V) is a new federal credit program within the scope of FCRA. This new federal credit program and the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act on which it is modeled are both subject by statute to FCRA.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the distinguished House majority leader.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself the balance of the time. Let me first start off by saying, Mr. Chairman, you have presided over this budget for many years. You have set a great example for the rest of us. This is your last year serving, and I want to thank you for what you have done for this institution. Thank you for setting a great example. Mr. Chairman, what this debate comes down to is a question of trust. We have offered a budget because we trust the American people. Unlike the Senate Democrats who, once again, have punted, have chosen not even to offer a budget this year, we trust the people to make an honest assessment. We trust them to make the right choice for their future. Now, to their credit, the House Democrats have offered budgets as well. The problem is they put their trust in Washington. Every time you hear this word ``investment,'' just know what that means: take from hard-working taxpayers, borrow more money from our next generation, from other countries, and spend it in Washington. Time and again, they are proposing to put government in the driver's seat. They have already engineered a takeover of our entire health care sector. They are overregulating our energy sector. They are depriving us of jobs. They won't even give us the Keystone pipeline. They are proposing yet new taxes, another $1.8 trillion increase. They are proposing more cronyism. They are proposing more control for Washington, less control of our communities, less control over our businesses, less control over our lives, less control over our futures. In my respectful opinion, it is a vision that is both paternalistic, arrogant, and downright condescending. You know, Big Government, in theory, it sounds compelling. In practice, it is totally different. Remember, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Remember, if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. Remember, if government just takes over this sector, it will lower your costs. Big Government in practice is so different than in the theory. The results have nothing to do with the rhetoric. We, on the other hand, trust the people. We are offering a balanced budget that pays down the debt. We are offering patient-centered solutions, so patients are the nucleus of the health care system, not the government. We are offering a plan to save Medicare now and for future generations. We are offering a stronger safety net with State flexibility to help meet people's needs and to help people get from welfare to work, to make the most of their lives. We are offering a progrowth Tax Code. We are offering more energy jobs. You can boil the differences down to one question: Who knows better, the people or Washington? We have made our choice with this budget. I trust the American people to make theirs. Mr. Chairman, let's call the votes.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First off, let me start off by saying to my friend from Maryland: I am glad we are having this debate, and this is the last time the two of us are doing this, and it has been a pleasure. I also want to thank the staff. All of our staffs have put so much hard work into this. I want to thank our staff, led by our great staff director, Austin Smythe, for all that he has done. I want to thank the people over at the CBO who work really long hours producing all of these estimates so that we can write these budgets. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record these names to show our thanks. House Budget Committee Majority Staff Austin Smythe Andy Morton Tim Flynn Conor Sweeney Vanessa Day William Allison Brian Bolduc Dennis Teti Paul Restuccia Nicole Foltz Jon Romito Mary Popadiuk Jon Burks Jim Herz Matt Hoffmann Ted McCann Stephanie Parks Justin Bogie Shane Skelton Gene Emmans Kara McKee Jenna Spealman Donald Schneider Alex Stoddard Jose Guillen Richard ``Dick'' Magee Eric Davis Interns: Boyd Garriott, Gabriel Krimm, and Alyssa Wootton Personal Staff (Representative Paul Ryan, Wisconsin, 1st District) Cameron Clark Chad Herbert Casey Higgins Susie Liston Joyce Meyer Teresa Mora Sarah Peer Lauren Schroeder Kevin Seifert Andy Speth Allison Steil Tricia Stoneking Robert Swift Danyell Tremmel Megan Wagner Tory Wickiser Interns: Harrison Balistreri, Sarah Holtz, Gretchen Wade, and Brittney Weiland

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, the differences between our budgets and our approaches could not be more clear. Let me take them one by one. We have had a number of substitutes on the floor. There is one consistent theme from the substitutes offered by our friends on the other side of the aisle. While we are offering a budget that balances the budget and pays off the debt, they are offering a budget that never, ever balances. They are starting with a $1.8 trillion tax increase. That is on top of the $1.7 trillion tax increase that has already occurred. They go as high as offering in the Progressive Caucus budget a $6.6 trillion tax increase. They are offering not only a spending on autopilot going out of control today, they want to raise it higher, $791 billion in this budget to as much as $3.3 trillion in more spending. They are offering a budget to add trillions to the debt. Now, when they say they want to raise taxes, and that is what their proposal is, again, they like to say it is just on the rich: Anybody listening, don't worry, it is not on you, it is on just these few rich people. Here is the problem. They have a funny way of defining the rich. They have a funny way of defining it as small business. Most of our jobs come from small businesses. Those are the people who are going to get hit with this tax increase. That is where our jobs come from. Second, we have seen this movie before, and we know what it looks like. They have already raised taxes $1.7 trillion. Look at the taxes on ObamaCare. They were supposed to be taxes on the rich. It taxes everybody. It doesn't matter how much you make. You are going to get hit with a tax: a mandate tax, a sell-your-house tax, taxes, taxes, taxes. Are they raising all these taxes so they can pay off the debt? No--to fuel more spending. Here is what we are proposing. Here is what the gentleman doesn't want to say. We are saying have revenue-neutral tax reform, meaning take the amount of revenues we bring into the government today, keep that same revenue, but clean up this awful Tax Code. Plug the loopholes, cancel loopholes so that we can lower tax rates for families and businesses across the board to create more jobs, more economic growth. We have already gotten the studies that tell us doing this helps a lot. We are taxing American businesses at much higher tax rates than our foreign competitors are taxing theirs, and they are winning and we are losing. So we are saying, fundamental comprehensive tax reform, stop picking winners and losers in Washington, lower tax rates. Second, this House Democrat budget increases spending by $740 billion above what would happen if we did nothing. That is $5.9 trillion more than our budget. They used to call this stimulus. I remember just a few short years ago all these ideas were called stimulating and stimulus. Remember, Mr. Chairman, we have done this. And guess what? Stimulus didn't work. So now they call it investment. If you disinvest, that means you are not spending enough. An investment, just remember every time you hear the word investment, it means: tax, borrow, spend in Washington. Take money from hardworking taxpayers, borrow from the next generation, and spend more money in Washington. That means take money from businesses, take money from small businesses, take money from people creating jobs, borrow more money from China, leverage it against the next generation, spend more in Washington. We will spend $3.5 trillion this year. Spending is slated to go above about 5.2 percent on average. We are basically saying let's get this under control; 3.5 percent is enough. What they will also say is look at what we are doing on Medicare, all these awful things that we are doing on Medicare. We are saving it for the current generation by preserving it as is, and then we are making sure that it is there for the next generation. Here is the dirty little secret. Look at what they have already done to Medicare. It was ObamaCare that ended Medicare as we know it, it was ObamaCare that raided $700 billion from Medicare to spend on ObamaCare, it was ObamaCare that set up this new rationing board of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to put price controls on Medicare, which will lead to denied care for seniors. It is the House Democrats' budget that is complicit with the Medicare trust fund going bankrupt in 2026. Our budget strengthens Medicare, saves it for this generation, and puts reforms in place so that the next generation can count on it without having 15 bureaucrats running the program. Look at what they are proposing on national security. They track right along with the President's budget. They are proposing to cut compensation for our men and women in uniform, to hollow out our force, to cut training and readiness and structure, not to lower the deficit, but to fuel more domestic spending. So we will have an Army lower than anything we have seen before World War II, we will have a Navy smaller than what we haven't seen since before World War I, we will have an Air Force smaller than we have ever had before, not for deficit reduction, but for more domestic spending. We reject that approach. Finally, their budget adds $4.3 trillion to our national debt. That is despite this massive tax increase. Their budget never balances, ever. Under their plan, in 2024, the deficit will be $637 billion. At the end of the day it is just not credible. We trust the American people to have more control over their lives. We reject this budget. Let's balance the budget, grow the economy, create jobs, and pay off our debt, and pass the House Republican budget. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 additional seconds. That is why we need a different direction. That is why we owe the country an alternative; one that actually grows the economy, one that balances the budget and pays off the debt, one that secures retirement not with empty promises but real reforms, one that goes after waste and cronyism, one that respects people and does not offer more and more and more and more control in Washington. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 1 minute, Mr. Chairman. We have had a good three days of debate here. I plan on saying more in a few moments, but I find it really interesting, I don't see much of a defense of the budget that the gentleman is offering, and more of the continually what I would call discredited attacks against ours. Our budget increases spending on average by 3.5 percent over the next 10 years instead of 5.2 percent. We are proposing to spend $43 trillion over the next 10 years instead of the $48 trillion. This is draconian, awful, evil, terrible, hurting people. We have seen this movie so many times over and over again. All the other side is offering is just keep doing more of the same; the same economics that we have had for the same 5 years, just keep doing more of that. If taxing, borrowing, and spending was working, we would know by now. It is not.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), the vice chairman of the House Budget Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I believe the gentleman is supposed to make his remarks to the chairman.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me try and translate for the viewer what is happening here. Every time you hear the word ``invest,'' that means take from hardworking taxpayers and spend in Washington; and then when that is not enough, ``invest'' means borrow--nearly half of which is from other countries--from the next generation and spend in Washington. Just so you know, when they keep saying invest, invest, invest, or you are not investing enough, disinvest, it means tax, borrow, and spend here in Washington, as if we know better how people should spend their money. The analysis we hear about jobs lost and how this isn't going to work and it is going to cost all these jobs is the same analysis that said the stimulus was going to be a boon. It is the same analysis they said that if we just borrow and spend $780 billion in Washington on shovel- ready jobs, unemployment will never reach 10 percent and we will create millions of new jobs. It didn't work. It all comes down to this. Rather than prioritize our spending, rather than holding the Federal Government accountable and more transparent to make sure that taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely and prudently, rather than balancing the budget and paying off debts so the next generation has a debt-free inheritance, rather than taking on the bloated Tax Code that is mired with special interest giveaways and tax breaks and loopholes, rather than opening up this incredible store of oil and gas that could give us a huge renaissance of more jobs and lower gas and home heating prices and a better foreign policy, rather than preserving our military and giving our troops what they need, rather than growing our economy and creating what is estimated by the CBO to give each person an average of $1,100 more in take-home pay because of that faster economic growth, rather than doing any of that, just do more of the same. Stick with the status quo. That is what this rhetoric is. It is a straw man argument. It is basically an argument that says let's affix certain views to our opponents so that we can defeat these awful views that we say they have and win the debate by default so that we can stick with the status quo and keep doing more of the same. Mr. Chairman, here is where we are headed. This debt, this red line is the status quo. This is where America is going. It is not a Republican or a Democrat thing. It is a math thing. What we are saying with this budget is, the status quo isn't working. We can't do more of the same because we are headed in the wrong direction. Everybody in this country knows this. This is our plan. It is actually a plan. Pay off the debt, grow jobs, and challenge the status quo. And that is why I urge adoption of this budget.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee and the Ways and Means Committee.