Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My friend started off by saying this is a farce, this is not real. This is what Congress is supposed to do. Let's review what this legislation is or is not. Number one, six congressional committees went through their areas of jurisdiction to look for areas where spending can be reduced--to look for areas where there was government duplication, to look for areas where there was government waste and fraud--reported out of those committees savings, spending cuts, and we package it together here. We ought to be doing this each and every year. More to the point, Mr. Speaker, this package of spending cuts are built on top of the fact that we actually passed a budget to pay off the debt. We actually passed a budget to make sure that nobody gets a tax increase. That's a lot more than the President can say. The President's budget was voted down unanimously in the House and the Senate. The Senate, they haven't passed a budget in 3 years. We don't just have a fiscal cliff, we have a fiscal abyss in front of us, and that is the debt crisis that is on our horizon. Failure to address this debt crisis means not just 47 percent of Americans, but every American gets hurt. Every American gets a lower standard of living. Every American, especially the next generation, receives a lower standard of living if we don't fix this mess. So what is this we're doing here today? We're saying we don't think the crude across-the-board sequester is good policy. We think it will harm our national security--the first and primary responsibility of the Federal Government--and we want to replace next year's cuts with even more spending cuts that we think are smart spending cuts. The gentleman is talking about all these people who will lose food stamps and free and reduced lunches. Let me say it really clearly: Every single person who qualifies for food stamps will get food stamps. Every single child who qualifies for a free and reduced lunch will get their free and reduced lunch. What we're saying is you actually have to qualify for these benefits to get these benefits, and that's not the case today. We are spending so much money from this government that people who don't even qualify for these benefits, who make more than they should to qualify for them, are getting these benefits. There is a lot of waste. There's a lot of fraud. There's a lot of abuse in how our Federal tax dollars are being spent, and we're beginning to rein that in with this down payment of spending cuts. With respect to taxes, what we are trying to do here is limit the damage to the taxpayer. There's not a single tax increase that we're proposing here--not a single. What we're saying is prevent as many tax increases as possible from hitting anybody in this economy. Because you know what? It's not a very good economy. Look, elections have consequences. We understand that. I, of all people, understand that. The consequence of this election is we have a President who in every proposal he has given us has called for net spending increases along with tax increases. He used to say we ought to cut $3 of spending for every $1 of tax increases. He's not even doing that. The latest proposals say let's raise taxes and then raise spending. Mr. Speaker, that's what got us in trouble in the first place. With that, I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I missed rollcall votes 629 and 630. Had I been present, I would have cast the following votes: Rollcall 629--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass--``yes.'' Rollcall 630--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to the Senate Amendment--``yes.''

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the career and the retirement of Jay Pierson. We've been hearing from both sides of the aisle accolades for Jay. Jay has been the floor assistant to the Speaker, and I want to thank Jay for his 34 years of service to this Congress. He began his career in Congress in 1978 by joining the office of Republican Leader John Rhodes, and has served three Speakers of the House during his career. I've had the opportunity to see Jay's contribution to the House during my nearly 14 years as a Member of Congress; and while he may work in the Speaker's office, he helps us all with our essential duty as legislators and he makes this place run well. As the chairman of the Budget Committee, I have a responsibility to manage the budget legislation on the House floor. That can be a little tricky sometimes. You can always count on Jay to greet you with a smile on the House floor and to make sure things go well. In addition to his demeanor and his dedication, his institutional knowledge and expertise on floor procedure will be sorely missed. It's irreplaceable, that kind of experience that we've benefited from. For all of the outstanding work that he has done in his 34-year career, we deeply appreciate Jay Pierson's long service to the United States House of Representatives, to Congress, and to the American people. We wish him the best in his retirement and his new opportunity to spend more time with his family. We are all better served by his service.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, during the course of the week, I was absent for legislative business; had I been present, I would have cast the following votes: Rollcall 585--H.R. 5044--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--``yes.'' Rollcall 586--H.R. 5912--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--``yes.'' Rollcall 587--H. Res. 788--On Ordering the Previous Question-- ``yes.'' Rollcall 588--H. Res. 788--On Agreeing to the Resolution--``yes.'' Rollcall 591--H.R. 5987--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--``no.'' Rollcall 592--H.R. 3409--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.'' Rollcall 593--H.R. 3409--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.'' Rollcall 594--H.R. 3409--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``yes.'' Rollcall 595--H.R. 3409--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.'' Rollcall 596--H.R. 3409--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.'' Rollcall 597--H.R. 3409--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``yes.'' Rollcall 598--H.R. 3409--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.'' Rollcall 599--H.R. 3409--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.'' Rollcall 600--H.R. 3409--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``yes.'' Rollcall 601--H.R. 3409--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``yes.'' Rollcall 602--H.R. 3409--On Motion to Recommit with instructions-- ``no.'' Rollcall 603--H.R. 3409--On Passage--``yes.''

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, during the course of the week, I was absent for legislative business; had I been present, I would have cast the following votes: Rollcall 557--H.R. 6122--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass-- ``yes.'' Rollcall 558--H.R. 2139--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--``yes.'' Rollcall 559--H.R. 6186--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass-- ``yes.'' Rollcall 560--H. Res. 773--On Ordering the Previous Question-- ``yes.'' Rollcall 561--H. Res. 773--On Agreeing to the Resolution--``yes.'' Rollcall 562--H.R. 4264--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--``yes.'' Rollcall 563--H.R. 5544--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.'' Rollcall 564--H.R. 5544--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.'' Rollcall 565--H.R. 5544--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.'' Rollcall 566--H.R. 5544--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.'' Rollcall 567--H.R. 5544--On Motion to Recommit with Instructions-- ``no.'' Rollcall 568--H.R. 5544--On Passage--``yes.'' Rollcall 569--H.R. 5949--On Passage--``yes.'' Rollcall 570--H.R. 3857--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--``yes.'' Rollcall 571--H.R. 5865--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--``no.'' Rollcall 572--H. Res. 778--On Ordering the Previous Question-- ``yes.'' Rollcall 573--H. Res. 778--On Agreeing to the Resolution--``yes.'' Rollcall 574--H. Res. 779--On Agreeing to the Resolution--``yes.'' Rollcall 575--H.R. 1775--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--``yes.'' Rollcall 580--S. 3245--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass-- ``yes.'' Rollcall 581--H.R. 6213--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.'' Rollcall 582--H.R. 6213--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.'' Rollcall 583--H.R. 6213--On Motion to Recommit with Instructions-- ``no.'' Rollcall 584--H.R. 6213--On Passage--``yes.''

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the Chair for yielding. And I enjoyed listening to the stories of lore from my colleagues who hearken back to the good old days when we had smoke-filled backroom deals where laws were written. That's not what we are interested in achieving here. What we want to achieve is a process done in plain view, transparent to the public, that maximizes the opportunity for Congress to actually fix the mess that has become the United States Tax Code. At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, I think there's a difference in philosophy here. One side likes to think of the idea of everybody sending their money to Washington, then we go into a backroom and we slice up the money and then we send it out to favored groups, favored constituents, and people that we want to be as winners versus those who might be losers. We've got to get out of the game of Washington picking winners and losers in the Tax Code. Because what we do is we stifle that entrepreneur who has an idea, who might not have connections, but can actually have an idea and make a business grow. We want to remove those barriers to opportunity. We want to remove those barriers to upward mobility. We want a system of entrepreneurs where we have true entrepreneurial capitalism, not this crony capitalism. Mr. Speaker, both political parties are guilty of this. Republicans and Democrats for decades were party to the process of tucking into the Tax Code all these various special interest loopholes which end up rewarding a few while raising tax rates on the many. Well, we've got to get through those days, because if we haven't noticed, we're in global competition. Ninety-seven percent of the world's consumers live in other countries. If we want to have a good, strong growing entrepreneurial economy, we need to make things here in America and sell things overseas. But if we keep taxing our successful small businesses, our businesses all around at much higher tax rates than our foreign competitors tax theirs, they win and we lose. I come from Wisconsin. We're a manufacturing State. That's how we survive. We grow things, and we make things in Wisconsin. Our chief competitors right over Lake Superior are the Canadians. Canada just lowered their tax rate for all of their businesses to 15 percent last January. Well, the substitute that the gentleman brought to the floor, the substitute that the President is asking for, will bring the effective top tax rate for those most successful small businesses in Wisconsin to as high as 44.8 percent. Mr. Speaker, how on Earth are our businesses, our manufacturers, our successful small businesses going to compete when we're taxing them at a Federal level almost as high as 45 percent and our competitors are at 25 or 15 or lower? We won't. That's why we want to reform the tax system.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. The difference in philosophy is this. Some here like the idea of bringing more money out of people's paychecks, more money out of our successful small businesses, and then parceling it out in favors. We prefer the opposite. Let people, let families and let businesses keep their money in the first place so they can decide what they want to do with it. By having high tax rates with lots of loopholes, all we end up doing is we say, you can have some of your money back if you do what we approve of in Washington. Even with the best of intentions behind such ideas, it gets corrupt. The powerful and the connected are the ones who call the shots. So, yes, we need to clear the brush out. And, yes, there are popular provisions in the Tax Code, and that is why we want to have a process in front to debate those things. There will be fiscal space left for things like charities and such the like. Let's have a clear--in public, not a backroom--process where we debate just how best to go forward. And what we want is a clean up-and-down vote so that we can get this country going again, we can get this economy back on track, and we can look at our children and know that we left them better off.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 404 of H. Con. Res 34, the House-passed budget resolution for fiscal year 2012, deemed to be in force by H. Res. 287, and sections 503 of H. Con. Res. 112, the House-passed budget resolution for fiscal year 2013, deemed to be in force by H. Res. 614 and H. Res. 643, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record revisions to the budget allocations and aggregates. The revision reflects the budgetary impact of H.R. 8, the Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act of 2012, which would extend for one year through 2013, certain tax policies enacted in 2001, 2003, and 2010 and would provide relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax. A corresponding table is attached. This revision represents an adjustment pursuant to sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended (Budget Act). For the purposes of the Budget Act, these revised aggregates and allocations are to be considered as aggregates and allocations included in the budget resolutions, pursuant to sections 101 of H. Con. Res. 34 and H. Con. Res. 112.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, in response to the recession and financial crisis, the Federal Reserve had to take a variety of unorthodox measures to stabilize our credit markets and resuscitate the economy. Many in Congress have felt unease as the Fed took emergency actions to rescue individual companies and launched a variety of new credit facilities for an increasing number of banks, financial institutions and even investors. I share this unease and I believe that Congress should have the ability to gather information about the Fed's actions. That is why I voted in favor of H.R. 459, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. However, I do want to register my caution about opening up the Fed's monetary policy deliberations and actions to a government audit as it could erode the Fed's political independence. Even the appearance of politicians gaining some measure of influence over monetary policy decisions could have disastrous consequences. Political independence is not simply a luxury for our central bank. It is a core principle of good economic policy that yields real benefits for the American people. A number of empirical studies have shown that countries with independent central banks tend to have steadier economic growth and low and stable rates of inflation. This is not surprising. Just as politicians involved in fiscal policy have a bias toward greater spending, monetary policy influenced by politics would have a bias toward looser credit over the short term and therefore higher rates of inflation over the longer term. Financial markets would immediately recognize this and push up our borrowing rates and weaken our currency. Congress should strive for robust oversight of the Fed, but it must guard against political interference. In the end, an independent Federal Reserve with a clear and focused mandate is the best way to achieve the desirable ends of sustainable economic growth, job creation, and low inflation.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I believe they have the right to close, so let me inquire of the gentleman from Maryland whether or not they have another speaker.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. With that understanding, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, if all this borrowing, taxing, and spending was the secret to economic success and prosperity, we would be on the verge of entering a golden age, along with Greece. The so-called balanced alternative plan by the other side is balanced in that it does have deficit reduction of $30 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, but only because after the $55 billion spending increase scored by CBO, it has an $85 billion tax increase. If we keep going down this road, Mr. Speaker we're going to get the same results. What did we start with in this Congress? We passed a budget that cuts spending, that reformed government, that reformed the taxes and gets back to economic growth to puts us on a path to prosperity to pay off the debt. The Senate hasn't passed a budget for 3 years. Then we engaged in negotiations on the debt limit to try to get a down payment on deficit reduction and the Budget Control Act resulted. Therefore, the supercommittee failed, and the sequester is about to kick in. So again we took action in the House, and we passed the reconciliation package that replaces the sequester, which resulted in a net $242.8 billion in additional deficit reduction. We put specifics on the table, passed them through the House again. The crickets are chirping in the other body in the Senate. No leadership from the President, no leadership from the Senate, no leadership. What this is is simple. Since there is an absence of leadership on these critical fiscal issues from the President of the United States, from the Senate of the United States, at the very least show us how this is going to work. If you're not willing to replace the sequester, tell us how it's going to be implemented. That is simply a matter of transparency. We're not judging the debates or the merits or the each other's ideas and how to replace it; we're simply saying to OMB tell us how it's going to go down, because this seems to be your only plan. With that, Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to follow the bipartisan example that has been set in the Budget Committee and let's have a nice bipartisan vote on behalf of transparency from the legislative branch. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds simply to say that when we hear the words ``balanced approach,'' what that means to taxpayers in this country is, You give us your checkbook and we'll balance it the way we think it ought to be balanced here in government. Government first, taxpayers second. That's what the so- called ``balanced approach'' means. It means keep feeding higher spending with higher taxes. The problem is, Madam Speaker, the arithmetic just doesn't add up. You literally cannot tax your way out of this mess. Spending is the cause. We need to address our spending. The sooner we do it, the sooner we can get back on to a path to prosperity. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield that 5 minutes as he chooses.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the House Budget and Armed Services Committees, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the author of this bill, the chairman of the House Republican Conference, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5872) to require the President to provide a report detailing the sequester required by the Budget Control Act of 2011 on January 2, 2013, as amended.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5872, currently under consideration.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Speaker, here's basically why we are here today with the Sequester Transparency Act. As a background, under the current law, because the supercommittee was unable to agree on a deficit-reduction package, the Office of Management and Budget will implement a $110 billion across-the-board cut--which we have referred to as a sequester or a sequestration--on January 2, 2013. This comes half on defense, half on domestic discretionary--in other words, a $55 billion cut, which is a 10 percent cut to defense immediately, and then an 8 percent cut to domestic discretionary--but we do not know the actual reductions that will result from this sequester. As we debate this bill today, we will probably not be able to avoid the contentious issues on the sequester, but let's not lose sight of the fact that the bill before us simply directs the Office of Management and Budget to tell us how they will implement the sequester. So we're just asking for more transparency and more details. Within 30 days, they should give us the plan on how they will do this. This bill is essentially about transparency. It's not re-litigating the budget fight; it's about making sure that we have as much information as we can to make the right decisions. It's about carrying out a constitutional duty to ensure that laws are faithfully executed and that we fully understand the Budget Control Act sequester, how it's going to be implemented. It has strong bipartisan support. The House Budget Committee voted 30-0 to report this bill here to the floor, and the Senate has passed similar legislation on a bipartisan basis. With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 2 minutes to a gentleman who serves on the Budget Committee and who also, I believe, serves on the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished lady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield at this time 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 404 of H. Con. Res. 34, the House-passed budget resolution for fiscal year 2012, deemed to be in force by H. Res. 287, and sections 401 and 503 of H. Con. Res. 112, the House-passed budget resolution for fiscal year 2013, deemed to be in force by H. Res. 614 and H. Res. 643, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record revisions to the budget allocations and aggregates set forth pursuant to the budget for fiscal years 2012 and 2013. The revision is designated for H.R. 6079. A corresponding table is attached. The applicable concurrent resolutions on the budget allow adjustments pursuant to sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended (Budget Act). For the purposes of the Budget Act, these revised aggregates and allocations are to be considered as aggregates and allocations included in the budget resolutions, pursuant to sections 101 of H. Con. Res. 34 and section 101 of H. Con. Res. 112. H. Con. Res. 34 and H. Con. Res. 112 both included the budget impact of repealing the Affordable Care Act in their original budget aggregates and allocations. For enforcement purposes, however, sections 404 and 503 of H. Con. Res. 34 and H. Con. Res. 112, respectively, set their revenue aggregates at Congressional Budget Office baseline levels and provide for downward adjustments for certain enumerated policies, among which is the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. The attached table shows a revenue adjustment to H. Con. Res. 34 and H. Con. Res. 112 for H.R. 6079 only; the spending impact is not shown since it is already assumed in the original budget resolution aggregates.