Paul Ryan

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 would simply say that the same majority that produces the appropriations bill can reject any rescission requests by the President in the same majority. With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a member of the Budget Committee.

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, I yield myself the remainder of our time. Let me, first of all, say the gentleman left the floor, I believe, but Mr. Simpson, I want to thank him for a civil and spirited debate. This is not an attempt to go after one committee, the Appropriations Committee. And I understand that this committee might feel that way. This is an attempt to take one more step on behalf of the taxpayer to clean up the system on how we spend hardworking taxpayers' dollars. Here's the issue, Mr. Chairman. When we pass large spending bills, we vote on things we're not even necessarily sure we're voting on. And I think the measure of success of this reform will not be measured by how many individual spending line items get voted out of spending by Congress, but how many items don't get put in these bills in the first place because this brings through to the final part of the process that extra level of transparency and accountability that has been lacking. I'll take a provision authored by a Republican a few years ago as an example: $40 million, I think that's the number, for a rainforest museum in Iowa in a spending bill for Labor and Health that didn't go through the House, didn't go through the Senate, but came at the last minute. And, yes, this Congress, through the rules of this House, is banning earmarks and airdrops, but who's to say they won't return under our new management some day? I think it would be helpful to the process to say, you know what, if we're going to put $40 million for a rainforest museum without real consideration before the House and the Senate, we ought to think about that individually. Or, more importantly, if I'm a Member of Congress and I want to put something like this in a spending bill, I ought to think twice about whether or not I'm willing to defend this kind of spending in the light of day on an individual vote among my peers, because that could happen under this reform. This is constitutional because the President signs this spending bill. He doesn't sign part of it. He doesn't rescind part of it. He signs it, and then this gives him the ability to create a new bill saying, vote on this piece of spending. We have expedited procedures so we have to take a vote. It's no different than how Presidents send us trade agreements to vote on under expedited procedures. We're not saying the President can take a part of a bill and not sign it and then send us this. No. We're saying the President signs a big spending bill and then, if he wants, he can write a new bill within a tight time window saying cancel that spending. Then Congress makes the decision, the House and the Senate, by a simple majority vote, both Houses. They get to decide whether or not to reaffirm or to spend that money. All this does is it puts the taxpayer in front of turf, as my friend from Maryland says, and it gives Members of Congress the ability to have that extra layer of accountability and transparency so that at the end of the day we are always thinking of the taxpayer first and special interests second in the way we spend taxpayer dollars. Will this fix all of our problems? No. But this, along with many other reforms we seek to bring to the floor, will hopefully turn the process by which we spend taxpayer dollars into one that is more accountable, more transparent, and more responsible. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I want to begin by thanking my friend, Chris Van Hollen, the ranking member of the Budget Committee. This is a collaborative effort. This is a bipartisan effort. It's not that often that we have a chance to do this. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank the gentleman from Maryland for this collaborative effort. We believe whenever we can find the opportunity to reach across the aisle and work in a bipartisan fashion to go after wasteful spending we should do that, and that's what this effort is all about. I also want to thank the staffers who put a lot of work in this: Paul Restuccia, Nicole Foltz, and Jon Romito on the majority side. I want to thank Tom Kahn, Gail Millar, and Ellen Balis, for their hard work on the minority side; Chairman Dreier at the Rules Committee; Congressman Hensarling, who has been one of the forefathers of this effort. What this does is it is the expedited line-item veto and enhanced rescissions. This bill is constitutional, and I want to explain to Members why. The 1996 line-item veto was ruled unconstitutional because it delegated legislative power to the executive branch. This does not do that. This is quite the opposite. This simply says, after an appropriations bill has been passed, within a short period of time, the President can send up a new rescissions proposal to the House and the Senate to consider rescinding spending from that bill, and we have to simply have the vote. We can't hide from the vote. We can't duck from the vote. We have to have the vote. Here's why we're doing this, Mr. Chairman. Lots of bills from both parties over the years have had so many miscellaneous provisions stuffed into them without seeing the light of day, whether they even pass the House or Senate or not. The President has to sign the whole bill or nothing at all. This gives us the ability to pull those miscellaneous provisions out, send them back to Congress and have them vote on them on their individual merits. We believe what this will do will make every Member of Congress think twice before trying to insert, sometimes we call them airdrops or earmarks or pork or whatever you want to call it. We ought to have Members of Congress think twice that they might have to justify this provision on the spending bill on the merits by a stand-alone vote by their own peers. We think that act of sunshine, that act of transparency, that act of accountability will help improve the integrity of the spending process here in Congress.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 30 additional seconds to simply say this bill is bipartisan, it's constitutional, and it is yet one more tool in several that we are bringing to the floor to restore trust, accountability, and transparency to the way we spend hardworking taxpayer dollars. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, after that, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that 44 State governments have the line-item veto in their constitution, but we're not proposing that here. We're proposing to keep the power of the purse with the legislative branch and not grant that to the executive branch. This bill does that. With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona, a member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Flake.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3521, the Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

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 on H.R. 3581.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to begin by thanking my colleagues who helped pass the Pro- Growth Budgeting Act and the Baseline Reform Act in the House last week. Today, we are here to continue that work, focused on changing Washington's culture of spending and ensuring policymakers serve as responsible stewards of hardworking American tax dollars. I stand in strong support of the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act offered by the vice chairman of the Budget Committee, Congressman Scott Garrett of New Jersey. While it's well known that Washington has a spending problem, it is less well known that Washington isn't being fully honest about how much it is spending. This bill would increase transparency and accuracy in budgeting for Federal credit programs, the housing-related government- sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the publication of budget justification materials. First, it would require fair-value accounting, which recognizes the market risks that the government is incurring by issuing a loan or a loan guarantee for all Federal programs that make loan or loan guarantees. Market risk is already accounted for in several government programs like TARP and GSEs, and it's a very common practice in the private sector. Second, this bill would bring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on budget. These enterprises rack up billions in liabilities hidden from the public income tax payers. Last June, the CBO testified that it puts the total cost of the mortgage commitments made by these two entities at $291 billion and that that cost would ultimately rise even higher. Third, this bill increases transparency for information contained in agency budget requests by requiring that they be made public on the Internet at the same time as they are provided to Congress. Government agencies have an obligation to taxpayers to justify every dollar spent in Washington. Madam Chair, no budget process reform can substitute for political will when it comes to tackling our greatest fiscal and economic challenges. Getting America back on track will require a Senate and a President willing to get serious about the structural drivers of the debt and the continued impediments we have to economic growth. But being honest about the size and scope of our challenges, as this reform calls for, offers us a concrete step in the right direction. At this time, Madam Chair, I would like to yield the remainder of our time for the purposes of managing the bill to the author of this bill, Mr. Garrett, the vice chairman of the Budget Committee. With that, we will reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

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 on H.R. 3582.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying but it unfortunately bears repeating, our budget process is broken. Last year, the Senate didn't pass the budget. The year before that, the Senate didn't pass the budget. This year, they may not pass one again. The greatest threat to our economy now and our children's future is a fiscal threat, a debt threat, and yet we are on an unsustainable path; and one of the reasons, after the lack of political will among our colleagues, is the budget process. It has not been reformed substantially since 1974. As a result, many Members of this body have put years and hours of effort into fixing this broken process. I want to say Mr. Dreier, chairman of the Rules Committee, and Mr. Hensarling, our conference chairman, in particular have been two individuals who have put so much work into this. As a result, 10 bills are coming out of the Budget Committee. Ten members of the Budget Committee are putting together an effort to fix this broken Federal budget process to bring more accountability, more transparency, and better results so that we can fix this problem. This bill is authored by Dr. Price of Georgia, which simply says, while we consider large fiscal pieces of legislation, let's have the CBO add an analysis so we know what it does to the economy. That's not a lot to ask. A lot is happening, and we want to make sure that, as we judge large fiscal legislation, that we have the kind of an analysis we need to better judge what it does for our economy. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the author of this bill, Mr. Price.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Woodall for his leadership. I simply want to say I deeply respect the minority whip, and I agree with a lot of what he just said. First of all, he's totally correct when he's saying there's no substitute for discipline, meaning Congress has got to make decisions, and nothing can substitute for that. He's also half right when he says Congress is dysfunctional. Where he's half right, it's the other body over on the other side of the rotunda, the Senate, because last year in the majority they didn't pass a budget.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. That's right. Trying to get some consensus here. The year before when they had a supermajority, no budget. To budget is to decide. To budget is to make a decision. They haven't budgeted for over a thousand days. The budget process we have here, which we've had in place since 1974, requires the House pass a budget by April 15, the Senate pass a budget; and they didn't do it for over a thousand days. So when we look at the process, we see that it's not working the way it needs to. It's no substitute for personal discipline, for Members making decisions, for compromising; but in this particular case, we think the process is part of the problem. We think the process needs to be improved to make it more likely that we make these decisions, that we get to exercising that discipline. On this particular bill, we are assuming $1.4 trillion in automatic spending increases and discretionary spending over the next 10 years. We probably shouldn't do that because even though it happens--this is not a spending-cut bill. This is a measurement bill. But the way we measure it leads to a bias in more spending. What I'm trying to say, Mr. Speaker, is in 2009 and 2010, domestic discretionary spending, including the stimulus, increased by 84 percent. So this category of government has grown very, very fast; and we're saying let's stop automatically assuming that it needs to grow every year. Let's put the taxpayer first and the government agencies second as far as who gets the money first. What I'm trying to say is if we want to put a bias in favor of requiring agencies to do more with less, be more productive, more efficient, then we should not assume they automatically get a spending increase every year. That's how businesses do it. That's how families do it. A lot of families don't get raises, but their expenses go up. Gas prices go up. Insurance costs go up. Grocery prices go up. But they don't get a raise, so they have to prioritize. We think government should do the same, and we shouldn't just assume they are going to get a raise. This is not going to fix our budget problem, but we think this and the other bills we bring to the floor will improve the process to get us to what we need to do, which is come in here agreeing, compromising, and then deciding and having decisions made, which is budgeting, so we can save this country from a debt crisis.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. You're talking about deficit spending?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I first want to start off by thanking Mr. Woodall and Mr. Gohmert, two of the leaders on this policy. This is the second of 10 bills on fixing the broken budget process that we're bringing to the floor to try to bring back accountability, transparency and responsibility to our Federal budgeting process. What this bill does is it removes the pro-spending bias that currently exists in the baseline we use as a starting point in Federal budgeting. The baseline we currently use assumes automatic increases in spending in the discretionary budget. So, for instance, instead of basing next year's discretionary budget on what we spent this year, we don't do it that way. The way it works is we automatically assume spending increases. We automatically assume that government agencies can't live with what they had last year, can't be more efficient, can't be more productive, and we assume inflation in it already. We think for honesty, for transparency, if we spent X dollars this year, that is the base on which we ought to consider next year's budget. And for all those programs where inflationary updates are already legislated, such as Medicare, Social Security, or the tax brackets to prevent inflation, this doesn't affect those. Those programs by law adjust for inflation and, therefore, so should their baselines. Discretionary spending, something Congress controls every year, does not have that because Congress legislates every year. So what we're simply saying is let's err on the side of the taxpayer. Let's not err on the side of assuming every government agency automatically needs a spending increase one year to the next. If we think they need more money, then we should measure it on an honest basis and then legislate more money for those agencies. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will turn over the rest of my time to Mr. Woodall, the author of this legislation, and reserve the balance.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 534, I call up the bill (H.R. 3578) to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to reform the budget baseline, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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 on H.R. 3578.