Paul Ryan

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this budget is constructive. It reveals each side's priorities. It clarifies the divide that exists between us. We want to balance the budget; they don't. We want to restrain spending; they want to spend more money. We think taxpayers have given enough to Washington; they want to raise taxes by at least a trillion dollars. Take more to spend more. We want to strengthen programs like Medicare; they seem to be complicit with its demise. We see ObamaCare as a roadblock to patient-centered health care reform; they see it as a sacred cow. We think our national security is a top priority; they want to hollow out our military. We offer modernization, reform, growth and opportunity; they're clinging to the status quo: more taxing, more spending, more borrowing. This plan recognizes that if we cannot handle our out-of-control debt, we will lose control of our future. We cut wasteful spending, and we balance the budget. This plan recognizes that concern for the poor is not measured by how much money we spend in Washington, but instead how many people we get out of poverty. We reform antipoverty programs so that they work. We help strengthen communities and families. We recognize the need for a vibrant economy. The Stanford economist that looked at this budget last week said 500,000 jobs right away; $1,500 more in take-home pay for families in the first year; 1.7 million jobs and $4,000 in better take-home pay on average for a family in the 10th year. This plan will protect and strengthen Medicare; and it begins, yes, by repealing ObamaCare because that does great damage to Medicare. Again, the House is leading the way. We have a jobs deficit. We have a budget deficit. These are the byproducts of a leadership deficit. We still have no budget from the President in violation of the law. He gets his NCAA bracket in on time, but still there's no budget. This is the fourth time in 5 years. He set a new record this year, 2 months with no plan while we have trillion- dollar deficits and a debt crisis on the horizon. They have time for the attacks, but no time to offer serious solutions. His party leaders are unfortunately failing to offer a serious account of our challenge: no serious plan to grow the economy or create jobs, no plan to ever balance the budget. Take more, trillions of dollars more to spend more in Washington. That's what got us in this mess in the first place. So what can be done? The good news is that we now have a vehicle for regular order. The Democrats derailed the budget process each of the last few years and stopped governing when they stopped budgeting. At least we now have a budget process that's moving. We've brought them back in the game this spring. That's a good thing. So what's going to happen in the weeks ahead? We will make the case for our priorities. Whether the gentleman from Maryland wants to acknowledge it or not, we have divided government. The American people elected a Republican majority in the House, and our job is to make the case for our policies, find common ground where it exists and see if we can make this divided government work, and that is what we intend to do. We owe the American people a responsible, balanced budget. That's what we are delivering today, and I urge the support of this resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Little do some know that ObamaCare ended Medicare as we know it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished senior member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to simply say that I think that people know over here that we're not proposing a voucher plan. The premium support is quite different, and it's the only bipartisan solution to save and strengthen Medicare. With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to a member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds simply to say that Indiana is being denied their waivers, so they're being denied the flexibility they are asking for to run Medicaid as they see fit to serve their populations. Point made. I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I'm just not going to agree with that one, Mr. Chairman. I'll yield myself 30 seconds. The minority leader says she's concerned about the debt that is befalling the next generation. I'm glad to hear that. Doing nothing, the debt will go up by 56 percent if we just do nothing. If this budget passes, the Democratic substitute, it will go up by 54 percent. That's basically doing nothing as well. Jobs: the CBO statistic the gentleman talks about, it's not even an estimate of this budget, it's the sequester.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself another 10 seconds. But the Stanford economist who did look at this Republican budget says that we will create 500,000 jobs in the first year and 1.7 million each and every year by the end of this budget window. Faster economic growth, more jobs, getting the government to live within its means, balancing the budget. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), a member of the Budget Committee.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, this green graph shows you the revenues we've historically had in America. The blue line shows you the tax increases our friends are hoping to achieve, some of which have already occurred. The red line shows you where spending is going. We have a spending problem. But the time my kids are my age, the government will be taking twice as much money to spend on the Federal Government. Austerity is what you do when you have a debt crisis. You raise taxes and you cut spending on seniors to try and please the bond markets to stop the panic. That's the path we're on. What we're trying to do is prevent austerity. What do we propose? Let's grow the economy. Let's reform the tax system. Let's stop picking winners and losers through loopholes, lower tax rates for everybody--families and businesses--to create jobs and economic growth. Let's open up the resources we have in this country-- oil, coal, and gas--so we can bring down gas prices, increase paychecks, create jobs, help manufacturing. We have a safety net that isn't working. We have the highest poverty rates in a generation. There are 46 million people in poverty. We need to fix this safety net so it works to get people back on their feet again. We need to save Medicare so that it's not bankrupt--because it is on a path to bankruptcy--so that current seniors can rest in comfort knowing it's not going to be taken away from them, so that the ObamaCare rationing board won't take it from them, and so that those of us who are younger can plan for it. We need to balance the budget. Balancing the budget is necessary for a healthy economy, for creating jobs, and for giving our kids a debt- free Nation. That's why we do this. Their budget, despite what they say, never, ever balances. The budget the Senate is considering today never, ever balances. The budget that they're talking about here, the budget that they're passing in the Senate, it actually has a net spending increase. And don't forget the fact that taxes just went up by $1.6 trillion. What do they want to do? Throw another trillion on top. Guess what? They may say it's for the rich. They may say it's for the loophole. Watch out, middle class. The tax man is coming to you. Because that's exactly what all these deficits and all these tax increases are pointing at--taking more out of the paychecks of hardworking families. We're going to balance the budget and stop that from happening. That's why I urge a defeat of the Van Hollen substitute and passage of the base bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 2 minutes. I enjoyed my friend from Maryland, and I appreciate his attempt to speak on my behalf. I will just try to do that myself. There is one thing that is identical in this budget--the base budget--and the Senate budget: it's the appropriations No. 966. It's the one thing that is equal in both the House and the Senate budgets. The reason I rise in opposition to this budget, unlike what the gentleman just said, is that there is no way this could pass. I would say the opposite. Why? This budget never balances the budget. You will hear Mr. Van Hollen claim that, in 2040, because of certain assumptions they, on their own, make and that cannot be verified by the CBO, they think they'll balance. It never, ever balances the budget. Here is why: We are going to go from a $16-plus trillion debt to a $25 trillion debt in this budget--period. What does this great budget do? It shaves $612 billion off the debt. It has a $1.2 trillion tax increase. It has a $476 billion spending increase. We've got a $1 trillion deficit. We're piling debt as high as the eye can see, and they bring a budget to the floor that is increasing spending? Let's look at every budget offered by the other side: a $1.2 trillion tax increase by Mr. Van Hollen and a $476 billion spending increase; the Congressional Black Caucus has a $2.8 trillion tax increase with $1.1 trillion spending increase; the Progressive Caucus--that's the doozy of them all--has a $5.7 trillion tax increase with a $4.065 trillion spending increase. Here is the theme: Take more money from the economy; take more money from families; take more money from small businesses--spend it in Washington, and hope everything works out. It's not working out. Families are struggling because of this borrowing, because of this debt. We need to reject this amendment and go with something that works, and that means balancing the budget to get a healthier economy to create jobs, which is precisely what our budget does. With that, I reserve the balance of my time. [From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 18, 2013] How the House Budget Would Boost the Economy (By John F. Cogan and John B. Taylor) This week the House of Representatives will vote on its Budget Committee plan, which would bring federal finances into balance by 2023. The plan would do so by gradually slowing the growth in federal spending without raising taxes. Still, the plan has been denounced by naysayers who assert that it would harm the economic recovery and that, at the least, any spending reductions should be put off until later. This thinking is just as wrong now as it was in the 1970s. According to our research, the spending restraint and balanced-budget parts of the House Budget Committee plan would boost the economy immediately. With the Budget Committee's proposed tax reform included, the immediate impact would be even larger. The entire plan would raise gross domestic product by one percentage point in 2014, equivalent to about a $1,500 increase for each U.S. household. Ten years from now, at the end of the official budget horizon, we estimate that the entire plan would raise GDP by three percentage points, or more than $4,000 for each U.S. household. Our assessment is based on a modern macroeconomic model (developed with Volker Wieland of the University of Frankfurt and Maik Wolters of the University of Kiel) whose features include a recognition that the resources to finance government expenditures aren't free--they withdraw resources from the private economy. The model provides for other essential attributes of the economy--that consumers, businesses and workers respond to incentives, and they are influenced by their expectation of future economic conditions when making decisions today. None of these features is provided for in old-style Keynesian models. The House budget plan keeps total federal outlays at their current level for two years. Thereafter, spending would rise each year, but more slowly than if present policies continue. By 2023, federal expenditures would decline to 19.1% of GDP in 2023 from 22.2% today. Since the Congressional Budget Office projects that revenues will equal 19.1% of GDP in 2023, the House plan will balance the budget that year. Also by 2023, the publicly held federal debt relative to GDP would decline to 55% from its current high level of 76%. The House budget is hardly austere: The federal spending claim on GDP would still be considerably higher than it was in fiscal 2000 (18.2%) and only slightly below its claim on GDP in 2007 (19.7%). The reductions in the growth rate of spending are to be achieved primarily through entitlement reforms. The Affordable Care Act would be repealed. Medicaid and food- stamp administration would be turned over to the states. Medicare would be fundamentally reformed. Anti-fraud measures would be applied to federal disability programs. Among the major entitlement programs, only Social Security would remain unchanged; this is a deficiency in the plan. As for discretionary spending, the House budget plan would provide for only slight reductions from the levels that are set by the budget sequester. The long-run economic gains from restraining government spending would not, despite what critics claim, harm the economy in the short run. Instead, the economy would start to grow right away. Why? First, the lower level of future government spending avoids the necessity of sharply raising taxes. The expectation that tax rates won't need to rise provides incentives for higher investment and employment today. Second, since the expectation of lower future taxes has the effect of raising people's estimation of future disposable income, consumption increases today. This change comes thanks to Milton Friedman's famous ``permanent income'' hypothesis that the behavior of consumers reflects what they expect to earn over a long period. According to our macroeconomic model, the higher level of consumption induced by the House budget's effect on consumer expectations is large enough to offset the reduced growth of government spending. Third, the new budget's reduction in the growth of government spending is gradual. That allows private businesses to adjust efficiently without disruptions. Still, our macroeconomic model likely underestimates the positive impact of the House budget plan. The model doesn't account for the greater economic certainty that results from preventing the national debt from soaring to dangerously high levels and from stabilizing the federal tax burden. Nor does the model account for beneficial changes in monetary policy that could accompany enactment of the budget plan. Lower deficits and national debt would reduce pressure on the Federal Reserve to continue buying longterm Treasury bonds. The U.S. economy has been experiencing its slowest recovery from a deep recession in modern history. Tragically, fewer people are working as a percentage of the working-age population than when the recovery began--and economic growth was only 1.6% last year. The large federal budget deficits-- by increasing uncertainty and delaying private spending--are an important cause of this lackluster economic performance. For too long, policy makers have been misguided by models that lend support to bigger government or to the politically convenient objective of delaying any reduction in spending. It is better to recognize the flaws in this approach and get on with the sensible budget reforms the country so sorely needs.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 1 minute. The gentleman is correct in saying that the savings that are in the Affordable Care Act for Medicare we apply back to Medicare. That's correct. We think that money should stay in Medicare to extend its solvency and not be raided from Medicare to spend on ObamaCare. He says we keep the savings but we don't keep any of the benefits. President Obama said that premiums would go down by $2,500 if we passed ObamaCare. They've gone up by $3,000, on average. I don't call that a benefit. The costs of the bill have gone from $938 billion to $1.88 trillion. It's a budget buster. It doesn't pay for itself. I don't think that's a benefit. Next year, young people are expected to see their premiums go up by 145 percent to 189 percent. I don't think that's a benefit either. So, yes, we don't want these benefits. We don't think turning Medicare over to a board of 15 unelected bureaucrats to cut it in ways that will surely lead to denied care for current seniors is a benefit. That's why I want to yield 2 minutes--well, that's not why, but I also want to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman), a former member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a member of the Budget Committee and also the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself just 30 seconds to say that austerity is what we're trying to prevent from happening. That's the irony of this debate. Austerity is what happens after the debt crisis hits. Austerity is what is happening in Europe. Austerity is cranking up taxes, slowing down your economy and cutting benefits on senior citizens after they've retired. That's what austerity is. That's what they call it. We're preventing that. We're preempting that. The goal of this budget is a reasonable plan to balance the budget, to grow the economy, and to create more take-home pay so families can prosper. With that, I yield 3 minutes to a new member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 1 minute. I enjoy the back-and-forth on Medicare. Let's not forget that under our proposal there's no cap on Medicare growth for current seniors. We don't have the cap like ObamaCare does. ObamaCare caps Medicare and then has this board of 15 bureaucrats decide how to affect current seniors to make it live within its cap to its price controls. We don't do that. We say leave Medicare alone. People like my mom organized their lives around this program and retired on it. Don't change a thing. Don't put some cap with bureaucrats price-controlling it. The premium support we're talking about, that's for future seniors. And if you're poor, if you're sick, if you're middle income, you get a lot more subsidy--total coverage for poor people--than the wealthy. I keep hearing all this talk about wealthy. We say the wealthy should pay more for their own premiums than everybody else. That helps us save Medicare for the next generation. These are ideas that actually have bipartisan support--the only bipartisan idea on how to save Medicare versus the rationing from the IPAB board. With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee, a member of the Budget Committee and a member of the Commerce Committee, Mrs. Blackburn.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. That was very entertaining. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. There are two ways to deal with Medicare essentially. And I think most people would agree, Medicare has a big problem. It's going bankrupt. And the gentleman from Maryland talked about demographics and health inflation. ObamaCare changed Medicare as we know it. ObamaCare puts a board of 15 unelected bureaucrats in charge of Medicare. These bureaucrats, by law, are given the assignment to require Medicare cuts each and every year to hit the targets that will lead to denied care for current seniors. We disagree with that. We think patients and their doctors should be in charge of their health care. We believe in choice and competition so that seniors have guaranteed coverage options to make sure that they can have a plan that best meets their needs. Now, is this some pie in the sky theory?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. There are too many points to refute, so I won't bother trying. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ribble.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 30 seconds to say the interest rate cliff in student loans was put in law by the Democrats in the first place. If we bring legislation to the floor that is paid for to deal with it like we did last year, I would assume we have every reason to believe that we'll pass it. With that, I yield 3 minutes to a new member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself an additional 1 minute. Let me show you a chart. By the way, a voucher is, you get a check and then you go buy something. No one's proposing that. It's a good poll-tested word. Premium support is a bipartisan solution, the only bipartisan idea offered on how to save Medicare. It's how the prescription drug law works today. When the prescription drug law was passed, it was expected to cost about $100 billion when we began, on an annual basis. What happened to the actual cost? It came down 41 percent below cost projections. Let me say that again. The prescription drug law came in 41 percent below cost projections. Name me a government program that comes in 41 percent below cost. Why did this one do that? I'll tell you why. Seniors got to choose the plan that meets their needs. The plans, the drug-providing plans, had to compete against each other for the seniors' business. They compete, so they lowered their prices, they improved their quality. Customer satisfaction is at an all-time high. And lo and behold, costs went down.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, another chart. The red line shows where spending is going. These are Congressional Budget Office numbers. The green line shows our historic revenues. The blue line shows the additional revenues that President Obama has called for. He has already gotten a big chunk of this--he just got $617 billion--but even if we got all the tax increases that President Obama and his allies in Congress are calling for, it wouldn't even pay for a fifth of all the deficit spending that's coming. This is where spending is going. We are spending ourselves into a debt crisis. We will never, ever balance the budget if we keep spending growing at the pace it's growing right now. We have to do something about this because, if we don't, our families will receive a bankrupt country; economic growth will slow; and our kids will be guaranteed a diminished future. We owe it to our countrymen, to our economy, to our kids to get this under control. With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to a member of the Budget Committee, also a member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, Federal spending rises each and every year by 3.4 percent under this budget instead of 5 percent. With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to say I simply dispute my friend from Wisconsin's interpretation. This is the chart the gentleman from Maryland was talking about. Guess where we got this chart from? The Congressional Budget Office. It's the most recent numbers they've given us. Will they give us new numbers this summer? Yes. And guess what? It's still going to show a whole bunch of red ink. We can't wish away this debt problem. One year of spending and $3 for every $2 that you're taking in, you've got a problem. We've got to deal with that. We know we're giving the next generation an inferior standard of living. If we keep down this path, we will have a crisis, yes. That's not fearmongering. The gentleman was talking about the fiscal commission. Erskine Bowles, President Clinton's chief of staff, says this debt is a cancer on society, that we will have a crisis. The problem is: there are Democrats who agree with the facts; it's not the Democrats who are writing these budgets, though. That's our problem. Mr. Chairman, we're going to have to come together sooner or later to deal with this. That's why I want to yield 4 minutes to the vice chair of the Budget Committee, a gentleman who's offered lots of wisdom on this committee, the doctor from Georgia (Mr. Price).