Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House be considered to have taken from the Speaker's table the Senate Concurrent Resolution (S. Con. Res. 8) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2014, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2013, and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2015 through 2023, adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of House Concurrent Resolution 25, as adopted by the House; adopted such concurrent resolution, as amended; insisted on its amendment; and requested a conference with the Senate thereon; and during the remainder of the 113th Congress, it shall not be in order to offer a motion under clause 7(c) of rule XXII with respect to Senate Concurrent Resolution 8.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), the vice chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 380, I call up the resolution (H. Res 379) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding certain provisions of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2642 relating to crop insurance, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 379.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I would like to thank Chairman Lucas for his work on passing a farm bill through the House. It was not an easy task. And the farm bill got a lot right, in my judgment. It eliminated direct payments. It made reforms to the food stamp program, which are in desperate need of reform. It consolidated duplicative programs, and the Agriculture Committee has started to implement very needed reforms of these programs. Unfortunately, I don't think it went far enough, which is why I am offering this sense of the House. I think that we should accept what the Senate did--and they did it in a bipartisan fashion--to impose limits on premium subsidies going toward the wealthiest of farmers. What this sense of the House does is it simply says, let's agree to the Coburn-Durbin amendment which said, for those making above $750,000, the sense of the Congress is that their premiums for crop insurance should not be as generous as everybody else's. In fact, their premiums should be subsidized by 15 percentage points. This is hardly draconian. In fact, I would support going much farther than this, as I have voted consistently in the past. But what this says is, if you are a farmer and you make more than $750,000, all you will get is a crop insurance subsidy that is not as generous as everybody else's. It will be 15 percentage points less. Let me give you an example. If you have protection for 50 percent of your yield, right now the Federal Government will subsidize 67 percent of that. Under this, if you make over $750,000, you would be subsidized by 52 percent of your crop insurance. Hardly draconian. So what we are simply saying is, we had a vote that was 59-33 in the Senate to limit the subsidy for crop insurance for very wealthy farmers. That is 1 percent of all of our agricultural producers in the country, and what we should do is concede to that. We should agree with that in conference, and that is what the sense of this House resolution encourages. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Agriculture Committee for a very civil debate. He and I have talked about so many of these issues. We have worked so well together, and he has done the yeoman's work on moving these bills to the floor. On this particular issue, we don't agree. He may not think that I am helping, but I think I am helping by passing this. The reason is that this passed 59-33 in the Senate. If we pass it here, that just takes off the table one contentious issue that they don't have to negotiate in conference, making it easier to focus on the other things that you have yet to reconcile in conference. So we are actually trying to help the Ag Committee out here. That is one way you can put it. On a more serious note, I want to talk about a few of the criticisms. Pooling. My friend from North Dakota mentioned that it is important to have crop insurance with these people with very, very high adjusted gross incomes in the pool to make the cash flow. That is an actuarial argument that works with health insurance--healthy people subsidize sick people--but that is really not an argument that, I think, flows with this kind of insurance. Point number two: no one is saying that a person who has a high net worth, who has a high adjusted gross income can't get crop insurance. All we are saying is just don't subsidize him as much as everybody else. That is really not asking a lot. What we are saying is, if you are a farmer and if you make $750,000 of adjusted gross income or higher, you don't get subsidized by the taxpayer for your crop insurance as much as everybody else. Your subsidy is 15 percentage points lower than that of the people who make less than $750,000. You still get crop insurance. You can still buy it. You will still get a subsidy, just not as much as everybody else. Look, if you buy insurance on 50 percent of your acres, instead of the government paying for 67 percent of that insurance, it will pay for 52 percent of your insurance. If you buy insurance to cover 65 percent of your acres, instead of the government paying 59 percent of the cost, it would pay 44 percent of the cost. If you buy insurance on 85 percent of your acres, instead of the government subsidizing 38 percent of the cost of that coverage, it will subsidize 23 percent of the cost of that coverage. So there is still a subsidy. You are not penalizing or punishing success by not subsidizing people as much. If we were having a tax debate--if we were talking about raising taxes--then you are penalizing success. If we are talking about taxing and taking money from producers--from successful people, from businesses making any amount of money--then you are penalizing success. What we are saying is just don't subsidize people as much because this subsidy is taking money from hardworking taxpayers--from their taxes-- to give to somebody else. What we are saying is let's not take money from hardworking taxpayers to give as much to farmers who are making more than $750,000. We just don't want to subsidize them as much. That is not punishing success. The other point is that this is one of those rare moments in which I think there is bipartisan agreement that a farm bill really ought to be for family farmers. The purpose of the farm program is to make sure that individual families can stay farming, and that means the safety net needs to be there for that family farm. I know in Wisconsin most of our farmers don't make $750,000, so it probably doesn't affect many of the corn and bean or dairy farmers whom I represent. Maybe in North Dakota and in other States there are people with thousands of acres who make that kind of money. I think that is great--I think that is wonderful--but I still think that our taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize them as much as the family farmer. This is one of those opportunities in which I think Congress can speak with a bipartisan voice. I really believe, if the Hanna-Pingree amendment or the Blumenauer-Mulvaney amendment had been made in order, it probably would have passed. So this is our chance here in the House to speak with one voice on a bipartisan basis. Let's not subsidize folks at the high end as much, and let's protect that family farmer. Let's agree with the Senate and take this issue off the table as one of those contentious issues because we are agreeing bipartisanly and bicamerally that we ought to have a farm program for the family farmer and somewhere limit these subsidies. That is all we are asking for. With that, I ask for its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3174 makes funds already appropriated to the Emergency Highway Relief program available for response to the devastating floods in Colorado this summer. Critically, the bill accomplishes this without providing additional budget authority on net, or increasing the deficit over 10 years. Under our budget rules, discretionary appropriations that the Congress designates as an emergency are not subject to budget limits and do not have to be offset with other spending reductions. To ensure emergency appropriations are only devoted to emergency requirements, our budget rules do not allow emergency funds to be used as an offset for non-emergency purposes. If this were allowed, it would provide a backdoor means of allowing funds for non-emergency purposes to escape budget limits. This legislation is attempting to make available funding for flooding in Colorado using funds already appropriated and designated as an emergency by Congress. However, this bill is not an appropriations measure. From a budget scorekeeping standpoint the effect of the bill is to decrease emergency discretionary budget authority and increase non-emergency mandatory budget authority. If this bill instead amended the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-2) and designated the funding for Colorado floods as an emergency, then the purposes of this bill would be accomplished without any scored increase in budget authority. Because there is no effective process for designating mandatory spending as an emergency, the non-emergency mandatory budget authority increase in this bill cannot be offset by the decrease in emergency discretionary budget authority. In the end, this bill intends to meet new emergency needs making use of existing emergency funds. For that reason, I am going to support this legislation. However, I do not view this as a precedent and will not view a reduction in emergency spending as an appropriate offset for non-emergency funding.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I missed rollcall votes 484 and 485. Had I been present, I would have cast the following votes: rollcall No. 484--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1961--``yes.'' rollcall No. 485--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree H.Res. 354--``yes.''

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today, my colleagues and I introduced a House Resolution condemning the attack that occurred at the Oak Creek Sikh Gurdwara on August 5, 2012, and honoring the memory of those who died in the attack. We remember all those affected by the senseless act of violence that occurred one year ago in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. We call to mind the heroic efforts of Lieutenant Brian Murphy and all the medical and law-enforcement officials who responded to the scene. We also recognize the public servants who helped our community heal during this trying time. Since that fateful day, the people of Oak Creek have come together. They refuse to let violence shake their community. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families, and I'm committed to continuing to help the community overcome this tragedy.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I want to thank Representative Amash for offering this amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for 2014. We now know that the National Security Agency (NSA) is keeping a phone log of all calls made in the U.S. This issue merits heightened congressional scrutiny. We need to strike a balance between our efforts to prevent terrorist attacks and our protection of civil liberties. The committees with jurisdiction are conducting a thorough review--as they should. I look forward to hearing their recommendations. That said, rewriting laws--especially one that NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander says is vital to our safety--is not within the scope of the appropriations process. I welcome further discussion about the scope and intent of the PATRIOT Act, and look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that the law is not overly broad. So though I commend Mr. Amash for raising this issue, I must respectfully vote against his amendment.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with my ranking member, Congressman Van Hollen in recognizing the service of Frank Sammartino, who is retiring on July 26th after 33 years of public service, with 26 of those years in Congressional service. Frank is currently the Assistant Director for Tax Analysis at the Congressional Budget Office, where he has worked for most of his career. Frank's first job in Washington was as a staff economist at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. While there, he designed and developed a microsimulation model to analyze policies affecting Social Security, taxes, and means-tested transfers. Frank brought that modeling knowledge to CBO, where he developed the first microsimulation model used by the agency for analyzing tax policy. That model became the basis for CBO's individual income tax projections and its analysis of the distribution of federal taxes. Frank also served for two years as Chief Economist and Deputy Director at the Joint Economic Committee. As leader of the Tax Analysis Division at CBO, Frank has led his staff in providing high quality and timely analysis of tax policy and budget issues. He has directly contributed to and overseen numerous baseline projections, policy studies, and cost estimates. His expertise on a wide range of public policy issues has been a valuable resource for members and staff. In addition, everyone who has worked with Frank appreciates his warm manner, gentle sense of humor, and helpful spirit. We wish him well in his retirement from CBO and hope he will continue to contribute to our understanding of public policy issues for years to come.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, here's what we're doing: The President himself is saying that this employer mandate isn't ready, it can't work, and therefore he's delaying it. Here's the point: In our Constitution, it is Congress that writes the laws and the President that executes the laws. He doesn't get to choose which laws he wants to enforce selectively. We agree with him on the mandate. That's why the first of these bills says, okay, let's delay that. And here's Congress acting to do that because that's Congress' job, not the administration's job. But while we're doing this, we have to ask this other question: If the Fortune 500 companies come to the White House and say this mandate is onerous--it's not ready; millions of people are going to lose their health insurance; it's going to be a repudiation of your promise that if you like what you've got, you can keep it; delay this, great--what about the families and small businesses that are going to have the same kind of mandate? And that's the second vote we're going to have. What about the families and small businesses that are going to have the same kind of mandate? That's the second vote we're going to have. If it's good for big business, if this is onerous for them, if the White House admits it won't work for them, then why are they complicit with sticking the same kind of enforcement, the same kind of ``not ready for prime time'' mandate on families, on small businesses? This law is unraveling before us. What's going to happen at the end of the day is when you can't verify a person's employment base health insurance, when a person personally attests to whatever their income is, you are going to have a lot of people at the end of the year get all these subsidies that they weren't supposed to get, either by confusion, by waste, even by fraud, and the IRS is going to come in with one really big tax bill on families in a year's time and that will be a massive rude awakening. This law is imploding, this law is unnecessary, this law needlessly raises health care costs, and this law will cause millions of people to lose the health insurance that they have that they want to keep. Not only delay this mandate, delay the other mandate, so we can fix this once and for all with real health care reform.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson for their work on this bill. There are some good ideas in here, and we should act on them. Now, I still have serious concerns with this bill. But I'm hopeful that a conference agreement will address these concerns. Here's what this bill gets right: In some areas, it cuts wasteful spending. It eliminates direct payments. And it consolidates duplicative programs. I want to commend the chairman and the members of the Agriculture Committee for proposing these reforms. These reforms don't go far enough, but I'm hopeful that a conference agreement will limit crop-insurance subsidies to small farmers. We should impose a limitation on the Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) for those receiving crop- insurance subsidies, and I have been given assurances that the House will be able to speak on this issue. I will consider supporting a conference agreement only if it includes an AGI limitation or equivalent reforms. I will say there's been noticeable improvement in this bill: First, it encourages real reform to our commodity programs. In the past, agricultural interests used the threat of skyrocketing costs under ``permanent law'' to push status quo farm bills through Congress. By eliminating this arbitrary threat, we can continue to reform these programs under a more deliberative process. Second, this bill considers farm programs on their own merits. For far too long, Congress has considered agricultural programs and nutrition programs in conjunction. Both of these programs need to be reformed, and we should evaluate each of them separately--and on their own merits. I continue to believe we should have a safety net for our farmers. We should help the little guy--the family farm that's in need. We need these AGI limitations to maintain a safety net for small farmers and to ensure that large agribusinesses do not continue to receive taxpayer support. I want to commend Chairman Lucas for bringing good ideas to the table. I continue to have concerns about this bill, but am hopeful that a conference agreement can improve it. And if a conference agreement does not improve it, I will vote no on that agreement. I will support the passage of this bill--and will look forward to seeing the changes made in a conference agreement.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I want to thank Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson for their work on this bill. There are some good ideas in here, and we should act on them. But I have some serious concerns with the bill. On balance, I'm afraid the bad parts outweigh the good. And so I must vote against it. Here's what this bill gets right: In some areas, it cuts wasteful spending. It eliminates direct payments. It adjusts the food-stamp program. And it consolidates duplicative programs. I want to commend the chairmen and the members of the Agriculture Committee for proposing these reforms. My concern is they don't go far enough. And in other areas, this bill increases spending. For instance, it creates new farm-support programs, such as the Price Loss Coverage and the Revenue Loss Coverage programs. Overall, the bill's changes to farm-support programs are supposed to save money for taxpayers, but under certain economic conditions, they could actually cost more. And there's another problem: This bill expands crop insurance at a time of record debt for our nation--and record profits for the agriculture sector. Now, we should have a safety net for our farmers. We should help the little guy--the family farm that's in need. We shouldn't bankroll the big guys. But that's what this bill does. It loosens eligibility standards for crop subsidies--and increases the number of people who can apply. In fact, they may not even be farmers. Under this bill, someone could make up to $950,000 a year in a nonrelated industry--and still receive subsidies. Over 6,000 people who are losing money on the farm--but who are making plenty of money elsewhere--would become eligible. Finally, I have concerns with the food-stamp program. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has grown at an annualized rate of 12.5 percent over the past ten years. It will cost about $80 billion just this year. And though the program's costs will fall over the next ten years, they will remain at elevated levels--much higher than they should be. The fact is, we need to reform this program--and we need to encourage work. The 1996 welfare-reform law brought millions of children out of poverty. By strengthening work requirements in SNAP, we can build on the bipartisan work started in the 1990s and reduce poverty. This farm bill is a missed opportunity. Despite making modest changes, the legislation doesn't pursue real reform. I want to commend Chairman Lucas for bringing good ideas to the table. But I'm afraid this bill has serious flaws, and therefore I must vote no.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair, I want to commend the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the members of the Committee for producing bills that meet the current law limit on appropriations of $967 billion. The one area of the budget where we are exercising real fiscal discipline is discretionary spending and Chairman Rogers and the Committee are to be commended for bringing about that result. The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2014 (H.R. 2217) funds critical programs that promote the safety and security of the United States. In total, the bill provides $44.6 billion of discretionary funding for the operations of the Department of Homeland Security. While the majority of this funding is provided in accordance with the budget resolution adopted by the House of Representatives, $5.6 billion is provided in excess of the levels anticipated by the budget resolution using the disaster relief exception to the normal budget rules. We should be budgeting for these expenses and not adding funding through cap adjustments that provide funding in excess of the limits on discretionary spending. Congress should afford disaster relief the priority it deserves within the budget. Notwithstanding my objections to the use of this budget loophole, on balance, I believe this bill is worthy of support.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to sections 401 and 503 of House Concurrent Resolution 112 (112th Congress), the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2013, deemed to be in force by House Resolution 614 (112th Congress), House Resolution 643 (112th Congress), and House Resolution 5 (1136th Congress), I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record revisions to the budget aggregates and allocations set forth pursuant to this concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013, as deemed in force. These revisions are provided for the consideration of H.R. 45, a bill to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. A corresponding table is attached. These adjustments are made for the purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and other budgetary enforcement provisions. House Concurrent Resolution 112 included the budget impact of repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-152) in its aggregates and allocations. For enforcement purposes, however, section 101 of this concurrent resolution set the revenue aggregate at the baseline level estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. Sections 401 and 503 of the concurrent resolution on the budget provided for downward adjustments for the consideration of certain specified policies, among these is the repeal of these public laws.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, the purpose of the Full Faith and Credit Act (H.R. 807) is to protect the full faith and credit of the United States by requiring the Treasury Secretary to issue such debt as may be necessary to prevent a sovereign default. During the consideration of this bill in the Ways and Means Committee, I offered an amendment to clarify the relationship between debt issued under the authority in this bill and the statutory debt limit. This amendment was adopted by voice vote and is part of the bill as ordered reported by the Ways and Means Committee. This bill provides additional and limited authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to issue new debt obligations on behalf of the United States solely for the purpose of paying the principal and interest on specified debt obligations of the United States once the statutory debt limit has been reached. The intent of this bill is that debt obligations issued under the authority provided by the bill will count against the debt limit with one exception. This exception provides that if counting the full amount of these newly issued obligations against the debt limit would cause the debt limit to be exceeded, then the amount of the newly issued obligation that is in excess of the debt limit shall not count toward the limit. The following is a hypothetical example to explain the intended operation of this bill. Assume the debt limit has been reached and the payment of principal and interest on an existing debt obligation amounting to $100 requires the Treasury Secretary to issue $101 of new debt obligations using the authority provided in this Act. In this example, $100 of that new obligation would count against the debt limit while $1 would not. Importantly, applying this provision is a continual responsibility. If at some future date the stock of debt subject to the limit were reduced by $1, then the $1 that originally did not count against the debt limit would now count toward the debt limit. Under no circumstance can there be both room to issue new debt obligations without exceeding the statutory debt ceiling and an outstanding stock of debt obligations issued under the authority in this bill that is not subject to the debt limit.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. May I inquire of the gentleman from Maryland as to how many speakers he has remaining?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I'm going to reserve the balance of my time since I have the right to close and we have no more speakers.