Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, here's why we're doing this. If the facts that we now know today about this law were available when this law was being debated, there's no way this would have become law. This is effectively a government takeover of 17 percent of our economy, the health care sector. It was sold on a number of promises by the President that are now broken promises. Taxes? There are 21 tax increases in this law, 12 of which hit people who are low- and middle-income earners. Do you remember the line: If you like the health care plan you have, you can keep it? Completely not true. What about the idea that this is going to lower health care premiums? They've been going up ever since the law passed. They're going up next year. They're going up even more. Here's the fear. What we worry is going to happen, what is happening, is you're going to have what we call BUCAA, about five health insurers left: Blue Cross, United, Cigna, Aetna, and Anthem. That's the big joke in Washington. You'll have about five big, massive health insurers who are de facto public providing government extension companies like your utility company, except they're going to be controlling your health care. People say we should focus on jobs instead of this bill. This is about jobs. The CBO is telling us it could cost us 800,000 jobs. I remember talking to an employer in southern Wisconsin not too long ago, family business, a big family business, a private business. The woman who runs this business, whose grandfather founded it, had tears coming down her face because she provides health insurance for her employees at about $17,000 per year for a family plan. She's proud to do it. Her competitors notified her at one of her trade association meetings--they're publicly traded--that they're going to have to dump everybody in ObamaCare and just pay the $2,000 per person fine; $15,000 difference, per person, between herself and her competitors. She was telling me that she felt she had no choice but, when the time came, to dump her people into ObamaCare. That's what's going to happen in this country: People will get dumped into ObamaCare; ObamaCare will underpay providers; providers will go out of business; they'll overcharge the private sector; and we'll get a vicious cycle. Here is the awful irony about this. We can have affordable access to health insurance for everybody in America, including people with preexisting conditions, without this government takeover. That's why we do believe in replace. That's why we advocated then, and we continue to advocate today, for patient-centered health care reforms. Deal with the discriminatory tax treatment on health care. Get transparency in price, quality, and outcome so people can really shop. Have pooling mechanisms so people can bulk buy health insurance. Help those with preexisting conditions. Save Medicare and Medicaid by harnessing the power of choice and competition. Have the providers compete against each other for our business as patients, instead of hoping that the whims of some government bureaucrat will favor us when they make their next price controlling and rationing decision. We can do better than this. Here's ultimately why we're doing this, Mr. Speaker. A few weeks ago we had two chances to repeal and, therefore, replace this law. Now we have one. The Supreme Court upheld this law. That doesn't make it good policy. The one chance left--and yes, this is the 31st time. And I fear we're going to have to do it the 32nd time, because the one chance left is that the American people, through their elected representatives, through the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the President, has one more chance before this law is actually implemented in 2014 to repeal this law and replace it with true patient-centered health care reform, and that is why we're doing this today. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Let me say it this way, Mr. Speaker. This bill barely passed into law. It was the biggest social legislation to pass into law in over 40 years. Seven votes in the House, no votes to spare in the Senate, Christmas Eve, backroom deal, and it was based on three promises by the President of the United States. One, if you like the health insurance you have, you can keep it. That's a broken promise. Two, this will bring down our health care premiums. That's a broken promise. Three, there's no tax on people making less than $200,000 in this bill. That's a broken promise. Well, the President said, to get it passed, there was no tax. Then, he sent his lawyer to the Supreme Court to argue that it was a tax so he can keep it on the books. If any of these three broken promises were known to the public and to Congress at the time they were passing this law, the law would have never passed in the first place. We now have this information. Let's revisit this. With that, I look forward to a hardy debate with my good friend from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Flores.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma, a distinguished member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Cole.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds to simply comment. We know the CBO is going to give us a score perhaps in a couple of weeks, and it's going to be more expensive. That much we know. We know States will probably put more people on ObamaCare instead of Medicaid, which will cost more dollars. The only reason this bill ``on paper'' saves money is because they told CBO to score 10 years of tax increases of Medicare savings to pay for 6 years of spending. You can contort, distort, and torture statistics long enough, and eventually they will confess. That's what happened here. In reality, I have no doubt that this will be a budget buster. With that, I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita), a member of the Budget Committee.

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. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Lankford.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the vice chair of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I commend the Speaker, Chairman Mica, Chairman Camp, the conferees and their staffs for their work on this surface transportation reauthorization conference bill. With a history of short-term extensions and bailouts of the highway trust fund since the last highway bill was enacted, to the credit of Chairman Mica and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, they acted at the beginning of this year to report legislation to fundamentally reform this program to put it on a sustainable basis. While H.R. 4348 does not ultimately achieve that goal, it makes progress and the Chairman, the Committee, and the leadership are to be commended for that effort. For the first time, it offsets general fund transfers to the highway programs to keep the program operating through September, 2014. The bill also is at current level funding, earmark free, reduces the federal bureaucracy by consolidating transportation programs, and cuts red tape to institute significant reforms to complete major infrastructure projects. Relative to the Senate highway bill that irresponsibly relied on taxpayer bailouts for highway spending and past funding practices, the conference bill before us today is an improvement. Despite this bill's progress, it does not address the structural problems in our transportation programs and I have some concerns with some aspects of the legislation. First, though the Highway Trust Fund was intended to be financed at the level of gas tax revenues, Congress has increased spending for the program well beyond gas tax revenue levels. As a result, the fund has increasingly operated in the red by relying on general fund transfers to pay for annual funding shortfalls. The trust fund has required three large general fund transfers, or taxpayer contributions, totaling $35 billion since 2008. Over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) anticipates the Highway Trust Fund to run cash deficits in total of $105 billion, even upon enactment of today's bill. Through a budgetary loophole, these transfers of general taxpayer revenues are not captured for budgetary effects, allowing Congress to bail out the program without being recorded as a net increase in spending or deficits. The FY 2013 House budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 112, included a reform to close the budget loophole for general fund transfers to ensure future transfers are fully offset and assumed potential funding streams in the form of new oil and gas revenues for the Highway Trust Fund. Congress needs to continue to reform the critical highway program to put it on sound financial footing without further bailouts with borrowed money. H.R. 4348 makes an important effort to offset the $18.8 billion in general fund transfers contained in the bill. But, instead of continuing to rely on general fund transfers going forward, we need to address the systemic factors that have been driving the trust fund's bankruptcy. In terms of the bill's cost estimate, according to CBO, the unified budget impact of the entire bill is $16 billion in net deficit reduction over ten years. However, under traditional budget scoring, this does not include the cost of general transfers to the highway fund nor the flood insurance reforms' net income. When considering the bill under House budget enforcement per its budget resolution, if we include the costs of higher spending under scored general fund transfers and the flood insurance income, it leads to a small deficit reduction over ten-years. Second, I am concerned with H.R. 4348's use often-year savings to finance two years of spending. 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. Based on CBO scoring, the bill produces ten-year savings from pension law changes, but some of these changes come with long-term costs. It appears possible that any savings gained in the ten-year window may be offset by greater federal obligations in the future. I expressed my concern over a similar `smoothing' provision when used in past legislation. Finally, this bill extends the current interest rate on certain student loans for another year. This is another example where Congress established a temporary subsidy with sudden expiration dates and no plans for next steps. I believe it is imperative that we work toward responsible, long-term reform in this area. Congress must stop playing games with students' interest rates to score political points. A well- educated population is critical to higher incomes and stronger economic growth, but our current education programs have serious problems. The right question is not should the interest rate be 3.4 or 6.8 percent. The focus should instead be on how developing an effective, fair and sustainable process for providing capital to students one that ensures access to higher education without fueling tuition inflation and exposing the taxpayer to unacceptable levels of risk. I look forward to working with my colleagues to achieve such reforms.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 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 year 2013. The revision is designated for the Health Care Cost Reduction Act of 2012, H.R. 436. A correponding table is attached. This revision represents an adjustment pursuant to sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (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 resolution, pursuant to section 101 of H. Con. Res. 112.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 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 year 2013. The revision is designated for the Health Care Cost Reduction Act of 2012, H.R. 436. A corresponding table is attached. This revision represents an adjustment pursuant to sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (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 resolution, pursuant to section 101 of H. Con. Res. 112.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 314 the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Budget Act), I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record revisions to the aggregate budget levels and committee allocations set forth pursuant to H. Con. Res. 112, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2013. The revision is for new budget authority and outlays for a provision designated as disaster relief, pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, contained in a bill making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security reported by the Committee on Appropriations. A corresponding table is attached. This revision represents an adjustment for purposes of enforcing sections 302 and 311 of the Budget Act. For the purposes of the Budget Act, these revised allocations are to be considered as allocations included in the budget resolution, pursuant to section 101 of H. Con. Res. 112.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, we passed a budget. We showed what we would do to deal with all of these fiscal problems and fiscal priorities. We showed defense spending decreases off the defense request from last year. We showed a responsible way to get savings from the Pentagon budget. To my friends on the other side of the aisle, to their credit, they brought a budget to the floor that turned off the sequester and showed alternative savings as well. The Senate, nothing, no budget for 3 years. The President, he tells us he doesn't want the sequester to kick in, that it's a bad thing to happen, but he's not doing anything to show how he will prevent the sequester from happening. Two weeks ago, we passed a reconciliation bill. That bill said specifically how we will cut spending in other areas of government to prevent the sequester from occurring next year, 1 year. The ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen, authored an amendment to do the same thing, other savings to pay for 1 year of the sequester set aside. So both the House Republicans and the Democrats in the House proposed the same kind of solution, 1 year set aside. Let's just look at what people are saying about what the sequester will do to our national defense: The President, in his own budget, said that the sequester would inflict great damage to the country's national security; The Secretary of Defense says it would hollow out our defense; The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says that sequestration would pose unacceptable risks to the Nation's security; The Chief of Naval Operations says that the sequester would have a severe and irreversible impact on the Navy's future; The Chief of Staff of the Army says that he is definitely afraid of what would happen to our military if this takes place. All this amendment does is it gives us one more avenue and opportunity to take the spending cuts we have already articulated and to put them in place to prevent the sequester from happening, from seeing all these bad things take place. It gives another opportunity within this conference report, when that arrives, to prevent the sequester from happening by swapping those cuts out with other savings elsewhere in the budget. Our government is projected to spend about $45 trillion over the next 10 years. This is a trillion. So the math that the gentleman from Washington mentioned doesn't quite add up. But if we start dropping defense 10 percent in January, that is going to have a destabilizing effect on our national security. There is plenty of other government spending that's being wasted that can be cut to pay for this. Sixty-one percent of the Federal Government has been on autopilot, off limits. It has not been touched since 2006. There are plenty of areas that we can get savings from like this amendment proposes to. Let's get it from there, and let's not put our men and women at risk who are putting on the uniform and serving us and fighting for our country.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the chairman for yielding. Look, as the gentleman said, the President didn't ask for this amount of money. He asked for more money: in fiscal year 2012, $554 billion; the pre-sequester cap, $546 billion; the President's request, $551 billion. Our budget resolution was $554 billion. This bill, the base bill, is $548 billion. The gentlelady's amendment is $539.7 billion. The gentlelady's amendment is cutting defense below the BCA caps, below the President's request. To the other gentlelady from California, all of these programs she mentioned are increasing. The attempts that have been made by the majority have been to slow the rate of increase. This is being cut--real reductions in this category of spending--when all the other domestic spending is increasing, hopefully, at a slightly slower pace. So let's remind ourselves that this is the first priority of the Federal Government. We are in war right now. The President, himself, and his budget are saying that we have to be higher for the safety and the security of our troops. If the gentlelady's amendment passes, which actually brings it down below the BCA levels, then she is giving all the discretion to the executive branch, to the President, in order to decide how to allocate those dollars--ceding the power of the purse from the legislative branch to the executive branch--which is clearly not in our interest as guardians of the elected branch, the legislative branch of Congress.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, to facilitate application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act, I am transmitting an updated status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal years 2012, 2013, and for the 10-year period fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2022. This status report is current through May 11, 2012. The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature. The first table in the report compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the overall limits set in H. Con. Res. 34 for fiscal year 2012 and H. Con. Res. 112 for fiscal year 2013. This comparison is needed to implement section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. The table does not show budget authority and outlays for years after fiscal year 2013 because appropriations for those years have not yet been considered. The second table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for action completed by each authorizing committee with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 34 for fiscal year 2012 and under H. Con. Res. 112 for fiscal year 2013 and fiscal years 2013 through 2022. ``Action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the section 302(a) allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is also needed to implement section 311(b), which exempts committees that comply with their allocations from the point of order under section 311(a). The third table compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is also needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section equally applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocation. The fourth table gives the current level for fiscal year 2014 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 501 of H. Con. Res. 112. This list is needed to enforce section 501 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills that contain advance appropriations that are: (i) not identified in the statement of managers or (ii) would cause the aggregate amount of such appropriations to exceed the level specified in the resolution. If you have any questions, please contact Paul Restuccia.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 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 year 2013. This revision corrects a number that was inadvertently transposed in a previous revision submitted on April 18, 2012 for legislation related to the Small Business Tax Cut Act of 2012, H.R. 9. 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 resolution, pursuant to section 101 of H. Con. Res. 112. Budget Aggregates [On-budget amounts, in millins of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal Year

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for bringing this to our attention. We just received the legislation about 3 or 4 minutes ago, and there are a couple of observations I want to make. Number one, I think this is an intriguing policy with respect to denying pensions to the Members who become lobbyists. I think the gentleman should introduce legislation and send it to committee, like the legislation should be passed, and we should give it proper review instead of springing it at the last minute. The second point I would make is on an area where we completely agree, which is that Members of Congress should bear an even higher burden than we're asking of other Federal employees. This bill does that. The underlying bill does that. The underlying bill says: In addition to Federal employees going from paying .8 percent to their pensions, they go to 5.8 percent from their paychecks to contribute to their pensions so that they pay half of their pension benefits as is required through most private sector arrangements. Members of Congress will pay 9.8 percent to their pensions under this bill. This bill has an 8.5 percent pay cut to Members of Congress, and it only has a 5 percent pay cut to all other Federal employees. So we are already incorporating the idea, which we agree with. Members of Congress, in order to exercise moral authority, are the ones who should take the biggest pay cuts and have the biggest pension contributions relative to anybody else. That's why we have it in this bill already. While I understand the gentleman's interest--I appreciate it--it is something that we are already accommodating in this bill. As a result, I would urge a ``no'' vote. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. First off, Mr. Speaker, let me thank those six committees that contributed to making this possible. Over 60 percent of the Federal budget is in a category of spending we call mandatory spending. It's a budget term of art that means that part of spending is on autopilot. Congress does not address or oversee or set the levels of that spending in any given year. Congress does address what we call discretionary spending. That's government agency budgets--about 39 percent of the budget every single year. The last time Congress actually looked at this 60 percent of spending on autopilot for savings was 2005. It's important that we make sure that we're scrutinizing how we're spending hard-earned taxpayer dollars, and it's a shame that we haven't revisited this category of spending since 2005. We're doing that here. Now, the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Speaker of the House, the minority leader of the House, they've all said that this sequester is a mistake; it's bad, it's going to hurt. Not only does it hollow out defense, according to the Defense Secretary, but it also creates an 8 percent across-the-board cut to domestic discretionary spending, like the National Institutes of Health. We think we should prevent that. On a bipartisan basis, we think we should prevent that. That's what we're doing. This is the only plan that says, Prevent that from happening, and here's how you pay for it. Here's our plan to stop that from happening, this event that everybody says should be stopped. Now, when we take a look at what this package does, I think we want to look at, is our government working the way it ought to be? In particular, we're hearing lots of comments about how this hurts people, how this hurts the poor. Let's take a look at our poverty- fighting efforts. And should we measure our poverty-fighting efforts based on inputs or based on outcomes? Should we measure our poverty- fighting efforts based on how much money we're spending and how many programs we're creating? Or should we think about how many people are we getting out of poverty? Here's the problem: These efforts aren't working. One out of six Americans today are in poverty. We have the highest poverty rates we've had in a generation. These programs aren't working. Let's fix them. Let's pass reforms that instead decrease the poverty rate, which is happening these days, and get people back into lives of self- sufficiency. Let's go back to the American idea of an opportunity society with a safety net that doesn't keep people in poverty but gets people out of poverty into lives of self-sufficiency. And we're not going to be able to achieve that if we don't grow our economy. We're not going to be able to achieve that if we don't have more opportunities in society so that people who are on the bottom rung of the economic ladder can't climb up and out. We shouldn't be defining success as how many people we have on these benefit programs. We should be defining success as to how many people we are graduating from these benefit programs into lives of self- sufficiency, into jobs. That's the American idea. So when you take a look at whether these programs are working well or not, we need to reform them. We haven't touched these programs for decades. Food stamps, we've gone from 17 million people to 45 million people in a decade, a 270 percent spending increase--$1.8 billion in overpayments last year alone. We're just saying you need to qualify for the benefit to get the benefit. Medicaid. If we think this is such a success, then why are half the doctors filling out surveys saying they're not going to take any new Medicaid patients. If this program is working so well, then why was $15.8 billion in overpayments made just last year? Does this devastate Medicaid? Instead of increasing Medicaid by 125 percent over the next decade, this proposal increases it by 123 percent over the next decade--hardly draconian. What we're saying is we need to make these programs work to achieve their intended results. Give States more flexibility to customize their benefits to meet the needs of the people in their States. That's what these Medicaid reforms are all about. When we hear the other side talk about no spending cuts but more tax increases, that's going to slow down job creation. We're the first ones who came to this floor saying, ``Close these tax loopholes, but close these tax loopholes to create economic growth by reforming the Tax Code.'' Treat people fairly in the Tax Code so that a company or a person who makes the same amount of money pays the same level of tax. You do that by getting rid of tax shelters and tax loopholes, not to raise spending, but to lower tax rates so American businesses can survive, can thrive, and create jobs. Upward mobility. Economic opportunity. That's what we're trying to achieve here. Mr. Speaker, we should not be talking to each other in this society as if we're stuck in some class, as if this person's middle class, that person's lower class, and that person's upper class. Our ancestors left those class-based societies to form this country, which should not be a class-based society. It should be a society of upward mobility, where we can make the most of our lives, based on our own God-given talent and our own effort. We should not be speaking to people as if they're stuck in their current station in life and the government is here to help them cope with it. We need to get ourselves out of this debt crisis because, if we have a debt crisis, if we keep on this path where we're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend, we're going to have a debt crisis. Europe is in a debt crisis. And what happens when you're in a debt crisis? Immediate austerity, cutting benefits to seniors, cutting benefits to people in the safety net, raising taxes. That slows down the economy, especially for the youth. Look what we're doing right now. Half of our Nation's college graduates are either unemployed or underemployed--half. It's not working. We need to change these policies. We need to grow the economy. And if we have a debt crisis because of this spending, then the people who need government the most, they're the ones who get hurt the first and the worst. We're leading. The President, no plan to fix this. The Senate, no budget since 2009. And our friends on the other side of the aisle, tax increases, spending increases, no spending cuts. Mr. Speaker, this is a small step in the right direction. It's something Congress should do every day. I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I would say, Mr. Speaker, this is not a tax cut bill, this is a spending cut bill. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.