Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished majority whip, Mr. McCarthy.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), a member of the Budget Committee.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, let me just start off by thanking all of the staff and the minority and their staff for the hard work. I want to congratulate Mr. Van Hollen for bringing his substitute to the floor. The minority does not need to do that, and I think that it is good for the process and the system that they do that. In particular, I want to thank our Budget Committee staff: Alex Stoddard, Andy Morton, Austin Smythe, Charlotte Ivancic, Conor Sweeney, Courtney Reinhard, David Logan, Dennis Teti, Dick Magee, Eric Davis, Gerrit Lansing, Jane Lee, Jenna Spealman, Jim Herz, Jon Burks, Jon Romito, Jose Guillen, Justin Bogie, Marsha Douglas, Matt Hoffmann, Nicole Foltz, Paul Restuccia, Stephanie Parks, Steve Spruiell, Ted McCann, Tim Flynn, and Vanessa Day. I also want to thank our personal office staff and the people who are over there at the Ford Building that not everybody sees but who work for the Congressional Budget Office. I had the privilege to meet with them last December while they were busy putting the payroll tax numbers together. This year, the President's budget came late. Easter came early. Everyone was crunched. We worked them overtime, very hard. Now, we don't always like the estimates they necessarily give us, but I want to thank them for their dedication and their professionalism in making this process work. With that, I will reserve the balance of my time. Paul Ryan Personal Office Staff Allison Steil, Andy Speth, Chad Herbert, Danyell Tremmel, Joyce Meyer, Kevin Seifert, Megan Wagner, Nathan Schacht, Sarah Peer, Smythe Anderson, Susie Liston, Teresa Mora, Tricia Stoneking, Lauren Schroeder, Casey Higgins, Aubrey Yanzito, Rick Jacobson. CBO Staff Adam Talaber, Adam Wilson, Adebayo Adedeji, Alan van der Hilst, Alexandra L. Minicozzi, Allison Percy, Amber G. Marcellino, Amy E. Petz, Andrea K. Noda, Andrew Stocking, Ann Futrell, Anna E. Cook, Annette W. Kalicki, Athiphat Muthitacharoen, Aurora K. Swanson, Avi Lerner, Barbara Edwards, Barry Blom, Benjamin R. Page, Bernard C. Kempinski. Brianne B. Hutchinson, Bruce G. Arnold, Carla Tighe Murray, Caryn Rotheim, Chad M. Chirico, Chad Shirley, Charles Pineles-Mark, Charles Whalen, Chayim Rosito, Christi Hawley Anthony, Christian K. Howlett, Christina Vu, Christine M. Bogusz, Christopher Murphy, Christopher Williams, Christopher Zogby, Courtney Griffith, Cynthia R. Cleveland, Damien Moore, DaMischa Phillip. Daniel Frisk, Daniel S. Hoople, Darren Young, Dave Hull, David A. Brauer, David Arthur, David Austin, David B. Newman, David C. Gaffney, David D. Jackson, David E. Mosher, David Rafferty, David Torregrosa, David Weiner, Dawn Sauter Regan, Deborah A. Kalcevic, Deborah Kilroe, Deborah Lucas, Denise Jordan-Williams, Doug Elmendorf, Dwayne Wright. Ed Harris, Edward (Sandy) Davis, Edward C. Blau, Elias Leight, Elizabeth Bass, Elizabeth Cove Delisle, Ellen C. Werble, Emily Holcombe, Eric J. Labs, Ernestine McNeil, Ernestine McNeil, Esther Steinbock, Felix Reichling, Frances M. Lussier, Francesca Castelli, Frank J. Sammartino, Frank S. Russek, Gregory Acs, Gregory H. Hitz, Heidi Golding, Holly Harvey, Jamease Miles. James A. Langley, James Baumgardner, James Johnson, Janet F. Airis, Janet Holtzblatt, Janice M. Johnson, Jared Brewster, Jason Wheelock, Jean P. Hearne, Jeanine Rees, Jeff LaFave, Jeffrey Kling, Jeffrey M. Holland, Jennifer C. Gravelle, Jennifer Smith, Jessica Deegan, Jessica S. Banthin, Jimmy Jin, J'nell L. Blanco, Joanna (Jodi) Capps. Joe Miller, John H. Skeen III, Jonathan A. Huntley, Jonathan A. Schwabish, Jonathan P. Morancy, Joseph Evans Jr., Joseph Kile, Joshua Shakin, Joyce M. Manchester, Juan M. Contreras, Juann H. Hung, Judith Cromwell, Julia M. Christensen, Julia Mitchell, Julie H. Topoleski, Julie Somers, Justin Humphrey, Justin R. Falk. Kalyani Parthasarathy, Kate Kelly, Kathleen FitzGerald, Kathleen Gramp, Kent R. Christensen, Kevin Perese, Kim J. Kowalewski, Kim P. Cawley, Kirstin B. Nelson, Kurt Seibert, Lara E. Robillard, Larry Ozanne, Leah C. Mazade, Leigh S. Angres, Leo K. Lex, Linda Bilheimer, Linda Schimmel, Lisa Ramirez-Branum, Loretta Lettner, Lori B. Housman, Lyle Nelson. Majid Moghaddam, Marika Santoro, Marin A. Randall, Marion C. Curry, Mark Booth, Mark E. Sanford, Mark J. Lasky, Mark P. Hadley, Mark T. Grabowicz, Martin von Gnechten, Mary M. Froehlich, Matthew Goldberg, Matthew Pickford, Matthew Schmit, Maureen Costantino, Megan E. Carroll, Melinda B. Buntin, Melissa Merrell, Michael Bennett, Michael Levine, Michael S. Simpson, Mitchell A. Remy, Molly W. Dahl, Monte Ruffin. Nabeel A. Alsalam, Nancy A. Fahey, Natalie J. Tawil, Nathan T. Musick, Noah P. Meyerson, Noelia J. Duchovny, Paige Piper/ Bach, Pamela Greene, Patrice L. Gordon, Patrice L. Watson, Paul Burnham, Paul Jacobs, Paul Masi, Paula D. Brown, Perry C. Beider, Peter H. Fontaine, Philip C. Webre, Priscila Hammett. R. Derek Trunkey, Rae Wiseman, Raymond J. Hall, Rebecca Rockey, Rebecca V. Yip, Robert A. Sunshine, Robert G. Shackleton Jr., Robert McClelland, Robert W. Arnold, Robert W. Stewart, Rod Goodwin, Romain Parsad, Ron Gecan, Ronald L. Moore, Ryan G. Miller. Sam Papenfuss, Santiago Vallinas, Sarah Ammar, Sarah Anders, Sarah Jennings, Sarah Puro, Shane Beaulieu, Shannon Mok, Sharon Broderick, Sharon Corbin-Jallow, Sheila Campbell, Sheila M. Dacey, Sherry Snyder, Simone Thomas, Stephanie Burns, Stephanie Cameron, Stephanie M. Ruiz, Stephen P. Rentner, Steven A. Weinberg, Stuart A. Hagen, Sunita C. D'Monte, Susan Willie, Susanne S. Mehlman. T.J. McGrath, Tamara Hayford, Terry M. Dinan, Theresa A. Gullo, Thomas B. Bradley, Tiara P. MizeIle, Valentina Michelangeli, Vi Nguyen, Virginia Myers, Wendy Edelberg, Wendy Kiska, William J. Carrington, William Ma, William Randolph.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me just try to give, in a nutshell, the economic vision the minority leader just gave us. It kind of works like this: Take more money from communities, from families, from small businesses and send it to Washington; swish it around the bureaucracy; make the decisions here; then, through trickle-down government, try to create jobs from government; borrow more money if that's not enough; then print more money if that's not enough over at the Federal Reserve; and we can make jobs in government. It doesn't work. We've been trying this. Look at where we are today. Our debt is bigger than our economy. Look at the common theme we've seen before us. This budget, the House Democratic budget, has a $1.7 trillion tax increase; the President's budget, a $2 trillion tax increase; the CBC budget, a $6 trillion tax increase; and least, but not last, the Progressive budget has a $6.7 trillion tax increase. Is that for deficit reduction? No. It's for more spending. The House Democratic budget has a $4.6 trillion spending increase; the CBC budget, a $5.2 trillion spending increase; the President's budget, a $5.2 trillion spending increase; and the Progressive Caucus Budget, a $6.6 trillion spending increase. It is clear, they want you taxed more so they can spend more, and they never, ever balance the budget and they send us off a debt cliff. This debt crisis is the most predictable crisis we've ever had in the history of this country, and we've got to stop this notion that we can just keep taking more and more and more from families and businesses to spend us deeper into debt. It doesn't work. With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the House Democratic substitute. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 112.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time. Mr. Chairman, we are bearing witness to history this week. Across the street, we are witnessing what could be the end of bureaucratic- controlled health care. What we are on the verge of witnessing is a powerful reaffirmation of the American idea, and we are finally having the debate we need to have. Our rights come to us naturally, they come from God and nature, and not from government. This health care law is the latest and perfect example of the notion that government is now needed to grant us new rights. And if that is the case, then government has authority to ration, to regulate and to redistribute exactly how we exercise these new rights, such as health care. And if these new government-granted rights conflict with our constitutional rights and liberties, well, then, such is the sacrifice needed in the name of progress, or so the thinking goes. Across the street, we are witnessing what could be a rejection of this line of thinking. The new health care law, which asserts unlimited power to the Federal Government to decide for Americans how they should go about getting their health care, simply is not compatible with the Constitution. But the Justices who are considering this case, they've raised a very good point: If this is, at the end, a bureaucrat control of health care, what comes next? And if you listen to them, you may hear a pretty dim view of Congress' ability to solve this problem. With respect, I would suggest that they take a look at what we are accomplishing here in this body today. Here, in this Chamber, we are witnessing the growing momentum of a new approach, one that maintains a critical role for government, but ultimately puts the American people in charge where they belong. For the second year in a row, we are passing a budget that outlines a new approach to Medicare. We keep the protections that made Medicare a guaranteed promise for seniors throughout the years, but this is what we say to the bureaucrats who have mismanaged this program into bankruptcy: Enough. Your approach doesn't work. Government has never come up with the magic formula to micromanage America, let alone lower costs and improve quality. It's time to put 50 million seniors, not 15 bureaucrats, in charge of their own health care decisions. Forcing insurance companies to compete, that's the only way to guarantee quality affordable health care for seniors that lasts for generations. That's the answer to what comes next. Let's keep building on the growing bipartisan consensus on how to improve patient-centered health care reform. But putting our trust in Americans, it goes beyond health care. It is what this entire budget is all about. We get government bureaucrats out of the business of picking winners and losers in the economy because Americans should make their own decisions about what kind of car they drive or what kind of light bulb they use. We give power over the safety net programs to the States because we believe that governments that are closest to the people are in the best position to design programs for their unique communities, to get people on to lives of self-sufficiency and upward mobility. When we lower tax rates by closing special interest loopholes, we're saying we in Washington don't need to micromanage people's decisions through the Tax Code. Let people keep more of their own hard-earned dollars; let them decide how to spend it. Economic growth, jobs, upward mobility, opportunity, these are what we're striving for, just like our parents did the same for us. Mr. Chairman, it is so rare in American politics to arrive at a moment in which the debate revolves around the fundamental nature of American democracy and the social contract, but that is exactly where we are today. One approach gives more power to unelected bureaucrats, takes more from hardworking taxpayers to fuel the expansion of government, and commits our Nation to a future of debt and decline. This approach is proving unworkable in Congress, in our courts, and in our communities. This contrast with our budget could not become clearer: We put our trust in citizens, not in the government. Our budget returns power to individuals, to families, to communities. As these choices become clear, today's budget is a vote of confidence for the American experiment. We think that putting our trust in the American people will renew their trust in us. We think Americans should control their destinies, and we trust them to make the right choices about the future of our country. Mr. Chairman, we think America is on the wrong track. We believe the President is bringing us toward a debt crisis and a welfare state in decline. We are offering the Nation a choice. We are offering the Nation a better way forward. And we are offering the Nation a plan to renew America and the American idea. Mr. Chairman, let's have that vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Guinta.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I will yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes, and I will just do 2\1/2\ minutes to close. First of all, the reason I wanted to yield these gentleman half our time is I don't know why they weren't yielded the same amount of time as the other substitutes were. I don't know why that happened, but it's wrong that it happened the way it did. That's why I wanted to give them those 5 minutes. I also want to congratulate them for putting a plan on the table. It's nice to see. We don't see that too often these days. I served on the Simpson-Bowles Commission, and I voted against it. I want to explain why, and I will use the numbers from this budget to show. Number one, it keeps ObamaCare in place. It keeps PPACA in place. This budget does, too, because it's current law. So unless you rescind it, the spending of it, you're keeping ObamaCare in place, and I have a problem with that health care law. I think it's a bad one. This budget, Simpson-Bowles, keeps it in place. Number two, it doesn't address the real drivers of our debt, which are these health care entitlement programs. Simpson-Bowles didn't do it. This one doesn't either. To me, you're really not dealing with the driver of our debt unless you do that. Number three, revenues. Based on the baseline, it has $1.8 trillion in higher revenues. It does mean higher taxes. The last year of this particular budget has higher revenues than the Democratic substitute and the President's budget. The spending cuts, when you look at the baseline compared to the current law baseline, the one we all measure against here, and you take out the war gimmick, it only has $27 billion in spending cuts over 10 years; by contrast, our budget has $3.3 trillion. So I'm not a fan of the war gimmick. If you take out that war thing, it only cuts about $27 billion off the current law baseline. It claims that this cuts $4 trillion in deficit reduction. I'm not sure what baseline is being used to do that. But on the current policy baseline, this really only has $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction; 72 percent of that comes from tax increases and 28 percent comes from spending reductions. I want to simply say amen for bringing a plan to the table. I have tremendous respect for Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson and Jim Cooper and Steve LaTourette because they're here being a part of the solution by offering a solution and not being a part of the problem. I think it goes without saying, but it bears repeating, I just don't like the substance of it. I think it's going to end up pushing people into ObamaCare, whose costs will explode, and I think it's going to be bad for our health care system and it doesn't deal with the primary drivers of our debt. And I don't want to see a big tax increase before you deal with the entitlement programs, because then you're just chasing higher spending with higher revenues. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I will claim time in opposition, but I will yield half my time, 5 minutes, to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. When we confronted the 2008 economic crisis, which launched us into the worst recession since the Great Depression, which threw millions of people out of work, which lost trillions of dollars in wealth in retirement savings for millions of Americans, that crisis caught us by surprise. We didn't see it coming. Out of that came very ugly legislation that lots of us supported. Mr. Chair, this one is the most predictable economic crises we've ever had, and we have a Senate that has chosen for 3 years in a row to just do nothing. We have a President who, for the fourth budget in a row, proposes to do nothing to fix it. In fact, he makes it worse. Here is what we're trying to do. We're trying to go to the country and offer them a solution. We don't think the country is headed in the right direction right now because a debt crisis is coming. So we feel morally bound and actually legally bound because the Budget Act requires that we pass a budget to offer a solution and an alternative: fundamental tax reform to get job creators creating jobs; take away the special interest loopholes and tax shelters and treat everybody fairly; stop raising the tax rate on successful small businesses to 45 percent, like is going to happen in January, and instead keep their tax rates low so they can create jobs; control spending; reform our welfare system. We believe the American idea is essentially an opportunity to decide if the safety net--and we believe in a safety net that is there to help people who cannot help themselves, and to be there to help people who are down on their luck get back on their feet. But we do not want to convert this safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people into lives of dependency and complacency which drains them of their will and their intentions to make the most of their lives. We believe in a system of upward mobility and opportunity. We believe when we see Medicare and Medicaid going bankrupt that we should fix that. Let's let the States innovate, create, and have good solutions that meet the needs of their populations by giving them more control over Medicaid. They run it already right now. They just have all these government rules and regulations from Washington. Stop the rationing board from denying care to current seniors. Get rid of that, and replace it with a guarantee that current seniors get the promise made to them and future seniors actually have a program that's solvent. So instead of having 15 bureaucratic elites price- control their program, allow 50 million seniors in the future to choose which one they want the best. One-quarter of seniors already today pick among the private plans that meet their needs. We want to keep giving them the choices. At the end of the day, it's about a choice of two futures: Do we want this path of debt, doubt, and decline where we have a debt crisis, where the people that get hurt first and the worst are those who need government the most--the poor, the people in the safety net, and the elderly who depend on Medicare--or are we going to get this debt under control and pay it off and give our children a better future? At the end of the day, it's a philosophy. What the other side is doing and what the President is proposing is that elites in the bureaucracy who are unelected, they make the decisions. In my judgment, Mr. Chairman, that is paternalistic, it's arrogant, and it's condescending. So the question really is: Who do you want to be in charge of your life, you or these cronies in government? Do we want to keep taking money from job creators and from families and sending it to Washington so they can distribute it to their cronies, so they can distribute it to whoever has the clout, and so they can make all these decisions in our lives on health care, financial services, education, the environment, and energy? If we keep surrendering our liberties and our freedom and our dollars, we won't have the right to pursue happiness as we see happiness in our own lives. The idea of this country is that our rights come from nature and God to us automatically before government. Our rights don't come from government. But the idea that's being perpetrated, the path the President is putting us on, is one where he and his elites in Washington know better. They define our rights for us. They regulate, ration, and redistribute them for us. Whatever you call that, Mr. Chairman, that is not the American idea. We have a profound responsibility to look our children in the eye, like our parents did to us, and fix this country's problems so they can have a more prosperous future. We know, without a shadow of a doubt-- it's irrefutable--the next generation is going to be worse off. We know that if we allow this debt crisis to continue, if we allow it to kick in--and the experts tell us it could be as little as 2 years away-- everybody is going to get hurt and the economy is going to go down. We have a moral obligation to do something about that. What we're saying is do it now, do it on our own terms, do it in a way where people can see the reforms that are necessary so they are gradual, and do it in a way so that we can keep the promises the government has made to people who have already retired who count on government the most. At the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, this is about choices. And we are going to give the country a choice of two futures so they can decide whether or not we want to maintain the American idea in this country. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, let me yield myself 2 minutes to say, you know what ends the Medicare guarantee? The Medicare status quo. We had the chief actuary of Medicare in the other day. He said it is $37 trillion in the hole. That's the unfunded liability for Medicare. Look at the driver of our debt. Medicare is growing at such a rate that it goes into bankruptcy, the part A trust fund goes bankrupt in 2021, according to CBO. Now, what does the President's law, the current law in law, do? It says we need to slow the growth of Medicare spending by putting a cap over Medicare. That's in law today. And then it says, in order to enforce this cap, we're going to have 15 political appointees that the President will appoint for 6-year terms. They make the decisions. They decide what health care providers can do or cannot do and what they get paid. The Medicare chief actuary came and told us the other day, they'll start off by paying Medicare providers 80 cents on the dollar to provide Medicare benefits and then go down to 30 cents on the dollar. You think your doctor's going to do what you need if he gets paid 30 cents on the dollar? He said that 40 percent of Medicare providers are either going to go out of business or just stop taking Medicare patients altogether. That's the current law. That ends the guarantee. Here's what we say: Get rid of the rationing board. Stop the bureaucrats from getting between the doctor and her patients. And don't change Medicare for people 55 and above so that you can keep the promise the government's made to them. But for those younger generations, because the program is going bankrupt, you must reform it in order to keep the promise to current seniors.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Yes.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I'll keep what I have.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I am the last speaker. I reserve the right to close. So I will let the gentleman from Maryland use up all his time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I'll close by saying, Mr. Chairman, how I started. I want to congratulate the gentlemen for just showing a plan and coming together. But I would simply say that the President disavowed this plan already. The Senator majority leader said he's not doing a budget this year, so I don't think anything is passing over there. I want to reserve the rest of my comments for the substance of this. And I'll reveal the private conversation I had with Simpson and Bowles as to why I was not supporting Simpson and Bowles, as a member of that commission. This doesn't go big. This doesn't tackle the problem. It doesn't do the big things. You can never get the debt under control if you don't deal with our health care entitlement programs. They're the ones that are the big drivers of our debt. So, not only in addition to the fact that this keeps ObamaCare in place and it doesn't do Medicare and Medicaid reform--which are essential toward preventing the debt crisis--by repealing the tax exclusion, as Simpson-Bowles plans on doing, purports to do, you're going to cause all of these employers to drop health insurance for their employees and push everybody into the health care law, into ObamaCare, and the costs will explode. So I believe that it will do more harm than good at the end of the day. I just don't think it's a balanced plan. I mean, if you look at the raw numbers, 72 percent of it is tax increases and 28 percent of it is spending reductions. That, to me, is just not balanced. We don't want to create a new revenue machine for government without getting these entitlements under control. Let's not chase ever-higher spending with ever-higher revenues. So I appreciate the sincerity and the bipartisanship nature of this, but I just don't think the substance of this bill is right. I think it's going to worsen our fiscal situation by piling people onto the health care law, and it's going to hasten the bankruptcy of Medicare. It's still going to stretch Medicaid, which grows by a third in eligibility, a program that's falling apart by the seams. And I believe these tax rate increases, the revenue increases, will just be used to fuel more spending. That's why I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, on the substance of it.