Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. By that, I am very amused, Madam Chairman. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman from Georgia an additional 1 minute.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. First off, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the sincerity of the minority whip's sentiment, and he is a man who means that. I know that. I would say, though, that this process of fixing our country's fiscal path would have been made much better had the President proposed a solution. The President just gave us his fourth budget, and for the fourth time, it doesn't do anything to get this debt under control.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. That's right. I thank the gentleman. The cap on Medicare that is in law under the President's budget applies to current seniors. That doesn't occur for current seniors in our budget. We don't put this cap because we don't want the 15 bureaucrats putting price controls on care to current seniors. For future seniors 54 and below, Medicare grows at the same rate that the President's budget proposes it grows at. The difference is we don't want the bureaucrats rationing care. On the purposes of taxes, I love this issue about tax fairness. The President is proposing higher tax rates and more loopholes. Here's the point I'm trying to make.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, what the gentleman refers to as simple facts was rated the lie of the year by PolitiFact in 2011. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to simply say that I keep hearing this word, ``voucher.'' I'm told it polls well if your goal is to try and scare senior citizens. What we're talking about in here is to build upon the bipartisan reforms that have been advocated in the nineties, in the early part of this decade, and most recently on how best to save and strengthen the Medicare guarantee. First, no changes for anybody in or near retirement in Medicare. Second, when people 54 or below become Medicare eligible, they'll get a list of guaranteed coverage options from Medicare from which to choose, just like we do as Members of Congress, including, in this case, the traditional Medicare program. Medicare will subsidize their premiums from the plans they choose. If you're low-income or sick, you'll get much more. You'll get total coverage--no out of pocket--for a low-income person; and we say, if you're a wealthy person, you can probably afford more out of pocket, so you're not going to get as much of a subsidy. That premium grows. We competitively bid. The plans must offer the basic benefit so it protects against health inflation; and as a backstop, it grows no faster than what the President proposes in his.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I apologize. I won't because I am under tight time constraints. And more to the point, Mr. Chairman, the United States Senate, controlled by the gentleman's own party, they didn't pass a budget in 2010; they didn't pass a budget in 2011; and now they've announced courageously that they're not going to pass a budget in 2012 either. How do you preempt and prevent the most predictable economic crisis in the history of our country, a debt crisis, if the President doesn't propose to do anything about it and the Senate won't even pass a budget? We're leading; we're passing; we're proposing a solution. We understand the other side would love to just wait for us to offer our solutions to then attack. We don't care about that. We're going to offer solutions. And when we hear the word ``balance,'' watch your checkbook; hold your wallet. It means tax increases. Mr. Chairman, it's math. You literally cannot tax your way out of this problem. The problem we have here is a spending problem. That is why we propose to cut spending. And with that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Mr. Mica, for the purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself an extra 30 seconds to simply say when eight out of 10 businesses in America file their taxes as individuals, raising these tax rates hits job creators. Sixty-five percent of net new jobs come from small businesses. Half of Americans work in these kinds of small businesses, and my friends on the other side of the aisle are saying it's not enough that they pay more taxes than their foreign competitors; we need to make them pay a 45 percent tax rate in January. Well, I've got news for you. Countries around the world are lowering their taxes on their job creators, and the President is proposing to raise it. That is a job-killer. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from the First Congressional District of Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes just to respond to a few of the things that have been said. First off, it's not the budget that lowers the highway funding next year by 46 percent. It's the current law that governs the highway trust fund that does that anyway. Let's remember, Mr. Chairman, the highway trust fund is going insolvent. That's under current law. So our budget simply reflects that current law. But we say, let's go get new sources of revenue from oil and gas exploration to go to the highway trust fund, and let's have a reserve fund so that we can go out and find savings to fix this highway trust fund. But since those bipartisan negotiations are just beginning to take place, since that conference is beginning to take place, we can't include it in this budget. Therefore, we had the reserve fund to be held in order to accommodate that compromise once it arrives. Medicare. The growth rate of Medicare under this budget is the same one the President proposes in his budget. So for the chart my friend from Maryland used saying this is what the Republican budget does to growing Medicare out in the future, it's the same one President Obama proposes. Here's the difference: President Obama, in his law, the one being debated over at the Supreme Court, says 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats will be in charge of putting price controls and cuts to Medicare to accommodate that growth rate versus our plan to put 50 million seniors in charge of choosing what health care plan is best for them. More for the poor, more for the sick, less for the wealthy; and it makes Medicare solvent. Here's the catch: we don't change the benefit for current seniors. This system applies to younger people. Unlike the current law that the President passed, that my friend voted for, 15 bureaucrats are in charge of putting price controls on current seniors' medical care which leads to denied care for them. So if we're talking about who's saving and strengthening Medicare, it is this budget as opposed to the status quo which raids it, rations it, and still allows the program to go bankrupt. With that, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire, a member of this Budget Committee, Mr. Guinta.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. In yielding myself 30 additional seconds, Mr. Chairman, here is the difference: The President's is different. He allows Medicare to go bankrupt. Yet, even with that, he takes a half a trillion dollars from Medicare to spend on his new health care program for other people, and he puts a board of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in charge of denying care by denying prices. It says you can go and cut reimbursement rates to providers and that you can do a values-based benefit design, which is what they propose--whatever that means--to affect current seniors. We reject the idea that Medicare should be run by 15 unelected bureaucrats. Instead, we want to preserve it for the current generation. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the House Republican Conference, a former member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Yielding myself an additional 30 seconds, I'll say this. If you look at the current code, the top 1 percent of taxpayers get almost all the tax shelters, all the loopholes. So here's the novel idea that we have come up with, and it's a bipartisan one. Get rid of the tax shelters so you can lower everybody's tax rates. And so a person who is parking their money through an average of about $300,000 in tax shelters, for every dollar in that tax shelter that's taxed at zero, we're saying get rid of the tax shelter and subject all of their money to taxation so we can lower everybody's tax rates.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to simply say that what we are trying to do here is add another layer of transparency and accountability. When an appropriation bill comes to the floor--at least under this majority--it comes under an open rule, which means that any Member can open it up to amendment, and we can have those up-or-down votes on individual items under consideration in this bill. But what happens after that moment, after a bill has passed the House, after a bill has passed the Senate and then it's conferenced, a bill comes to the floor, up or down, take it or leave it. Lots of things go into those bills in those moments between House and Senate passage and final conference report passage.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself an additional 10 seconds to say that this simply gives us that extra layer of accountability so that we can still consider individual items. And all we have to do if we don't approve of them is not pass them. We decide. With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to simply say I agree with a lot of what the gentleman said. He's a good friend. We don't have all spending in this bill, but that doesn't mean don't go after some of the spending that's passed by Congress. This is the kind of spending Congress passes annually every year. I think it's a good step in the right direction. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the House Republican Conference, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who is one of the fathers of this idea and of budget process reform.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield back the balance of my time.