Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

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, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3578.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

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 yield myself 3 minutes at this time. We welcome the President to the House Chamber tonight, where he will address the American people to assess the state of the Union. This presents another opportunity for the President to chart a new course. I hope the President takes this opportunity to stop offering empty rhetoric and broken promises, to stop pushing policies that have proven to make matters worse, and to stop dividing Americans for political gain. I hope the President takes this opportunity to start working with us to get America back on track. Yet the administration has, time and again, turned hope into disappointment. The President and his party's leaders continue to duck from the most pressing fiscal and economic challenges facing our Nation. Exhibit A of this failure is the fact that today marks 1,000 days without Senate Democrats passing a budget. Having failed to put forward a credible plan in 1,000 days, the President's party is committing America to a future of debt, doubt, and decline. Instead of dealing honestly with our biggest fiscal challenges and providing certainty to job creators, Senate Democrats have refused to meet their legal and moral obligations to propose and pass a budget. The President and his party's leaders refuse to account for their reckless spending spree. The lack of credible budget plans from the President and his party leaders raises the question: What are they hiding? Is it threats to economic security, health security, and national security that would result from their policy agenda? the job- destroying tax hikes that they continue to insist upon? the bureaucratic rationing and denial of vital care for seniors that would result from their health care law? or the deep cuts to the military that would hollow out our national defense? Mr. Speaker, their policy preferences call for ever higher levels of government spending, higher taxes, a board of bureaucrats to cut Medicare, and a smaller military. It's understandable why they'd be afraid to try and fit that agenda on a spreadsheet, but that is no excuse for giving up on budgeting. This failure to budget stands in stark contrast to our efforts here in the House. As the law requires, we proposed and passed a budget resolution last spring. We honestly confronted our Nation's most difficult challenges, putting the budget on a path to balance and the country back on to a path to prosperity. We will keep working together to advance solutions this year, and we call upon our friends in the Senate to get serious about their duty to those they serve: Propose a budget; engage in debates; advance solutions. I thank Congressman Nugent for his leadership on this resolution, which expresses the sense of House that passage of a budget is of national importance.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. 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. Res. 516 currently under consideration.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 516) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the passage of a fiscal year 2013 Federal budget is of national importance.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Here's the deal, Mr. Speaker. We're going to have a debt crisis in this country if we don't watch it. What is going to happen if that happens is everybody's going to get hurt in this country. Europe is in the middle of austerity. What that means is they're cranking up taxes on all of their countrymen, slowing down their economy. And they're pulling the rug out from under their seniors who have already retired and organized their lives around these programs. We want to prevent that from happening. We want to preempt a debt crisis. We want to get America on a path to prosperity and deal with this debt issue, and we can't grow the economy and create jobs unless we do that. The only way to fix this problem, to prevent seniors from getting harmed, to grow this economy, is to have a budget. And it's been 1,000 days since the Senate bothered even trying to pass a budget. It's the epitome of irresponsibility that the other body has neglected this most basic function of governing. We've got to save this country. And in order to do that, we have to budget and prioritize because that's what our constituents elected us to do. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of closing, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Florida, the author of this House resolution, Mr. Nugent.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Long).

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 15 seconds to say we must recommit ourselves to the American idea. We must apply our Nation's timely principles to the challenges of the day, and we will continue to advance bipartisan solutions and the principled reforms necessary to get our country back on track. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains between the two sides?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, as I yield time to the gentleman from Texas, I will simply say I'm sure my colleague, my friend from Oregon, knows that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate. I would just state that for the Record. At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Flores.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I enjoy listening to revisionist history as is practiced here on the floor of the House of Representatives. Our friends on the other side are saying that we haven't done our job, that we're not doing our work. Well, let's think about this for a second. It was the House Republicans that passed the full-year extension last year of the payroll tax and the unemployment extension. It was the House Republicans that named the conferees to get this work done. Let's think about who is and who is not getting their job done. This year marks the second year in a row where the President has literally flouted the law and is delaying his budget. It's 2 years that the President hasn't brought the budget on time as according to law. Today is 1,000 days since the other body in the United States Senate bothered to even try to pass, let alone propose, a budget. We acted responsibly. We acted in time. And, more to the point, Mr. Speaker, if we're going to have a temporary tax holiday for payroll taxes, let's never forget the fact that payroll taxes finance Social Security. This is why we insist on spending cuts--to make sure that Social Security is intact, remains whole. The failure to cut spending to pay for this temporary tax holiday means complicity with raiding the Social Security trust fund, and we are not in favor of that.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011 (REINS Act), which will ensure that major policy decisions are made by the people's representatives in Congress and not by unelected bureaucrats. The bill requires that major regulations cannot go into effect until approved by Congress. Under current law, these economically significant regulations go into effect without further action by Congress. This legislation's sensible reform has important implications for the consideration of legislation that authorizes regulations that result in mandatory spending or other budgetary effects. The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) longstanding policy is to score legislation providing such regulatory authority with the full budgetary effects of implementing that legislation. The rule governing consideration of H.R. 10 added a provision to the bill, titled the Budgetary Effects of Rules Subject to Section 802 of Title 5, United States Code, that ensures this practice continues. Absent this provision, CBO has indicated that once the REINS Act is enacted, it would no longer score the budget authority, outlays, or receipts authorized by a statute to that statute if those budgetary effects are contingent on the adoption of a major regulation. Instead, those budgetary effects would be charged to the joint resolution approving the major regulation. While this approach would maintain the principle that the legislation that actually causes the budgetary effects would be charged with the costs incurred, in practice it would create potential problems. Because the REINS Act waives all points of order against the approval resolutions, there would be a potential circumstance where new mandatory spending or other budgetary effects would escape Congressional budget enforcement. This provision retains the current practice of scoring the budgetary impact to the legislation that creates the rulemaking authority and ensures new spending created by that legislation would be fully subject to budget enforcement. I am pleased that this potential problem has been addressed, and I strongly support this effort to restrain Washington's regulatory overreach and create a more conducive environment for job creation. Description of the Ryan Amendment to the REINS Act The Ryan Amendment self-executed in the rule governing debate for H.R. 10 amends section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. Sec. 907) (BBEDCA) in order to ensure that any budgetary costs associated with approving or disapproving regulations authorized by legislation are properly accounted for under the congressional budget process. Section 257 of BBEDCA defines the budgetary baseline calculated by the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget. This amendment requires that the baseline include any changes in budget authority, outlays, or receipts resulting from regulations necessary to implement a law. Consistent with this requirement, the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget will continue to score legislation that provides the legal authority to promulgate implementing regulations with the budgetary implications resulting from the regulations. Absent this provision, CBO has indicated that once the REINS Act is enacted, it would no longer score the budget authority, outlays, or receipts authorized by a statute to that statute if those budgetary effects are contingent on the adoption of a major regulation. Instead, those budgetary effects would be charged to the joint resolution approving the major regulation. This amendment maintains the current law practice for scoring the original authorizing legislation.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Expedited Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act of 2011'' along with my friend and colleague House Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. The fiscal and economic challenges facing our nation are immense. In addition to the alarming budget deficit and painful jobs deficit, Washington's failure to tackle these challenges fuels a growing credibility deficit. For years, policymakers--in both political parties--have failed to serve as responsible stewards of American families' hard-earned tax dollars. Too many politicians continue to make empty promises to those they serve, spending money we don't have on government programs that don't work. The stakes are too great to continue to kick the can down the road. I believe that leaders can--and must--work together to meet these challenges by advancing structural reforms to the drivers of the debt and pro-growth solutions to create a more conducive environment for job creation. This bipartisan legislation takes a modest step in the right direction. The Expedited Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act gives the President an important tool to target unjustified spending, while also protecting Congress's constitutional authority to make spending decisions. This new authority would allow the President to specify spending provisions within an appropriations bill, requiring stand-alone consideration of the spending proposal by Congress. Legislation implementing the proposed spending cancellations would receive expedited floor considerations and an automatic up-or-down vote in both chambers of Congress. Should Congress determine the spending cannot be justified: Every dollar of savings would be devoted to deficit reduction. This bipartisan proposal builds upon past efforts to target wasteful spending, including Legislative Line-Item Veto proposals I've advanced over the years and the new House Majority's ban on earmarks. I remain grateful to Ranking Member Van Hollen at the House Budget Committee for his partnership in this effort. I look forward to working with my colleagues to help advance this common-sense deficit-reduction tool--a step in the right direction as we work to address the structural drivers of the debt and continued impediments to economic growth.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, today, I missed rollcall vote 859. Had I been present, I would have cast the following vote: rollcall 859--H. Res. 470, Providing for consideration of H.R. 3094--``yea.'' Stated against:

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the national debt surpassed the $15 trillion mark. We cannot borrow and spend our way to prosperity. We must get control of spending. While the Appropriations Committee deserves credit for getting an agreement on the three appropriations bills in this measure, I'm concerned where we are headed on spending based on the use of ``disaster'' funding and the potential use of temporary mandatory savings to permanently increase the base of discretionary spending. The bill also includes damaging housing policies that contributed, along with many government policies, to recent financial crises and increases the financial exposure of the federal government. Instead of advancing solutions in the face of this crisis, the President has not put forward a credible budget and the Senate under Democratic leadership has failed to pass a budget in over 930 days. Despite their failure to produce a budget, they are working hard to increase deficit spending. The House of Representatives actually passed a budget, ``The Path to Prosperity,'' which would put us on a path to balancing the budget and saving and strengthening critical programs such as Medicare--without resorting to trillion dollar tax hikes that will damage our economy and hinder job growth. We passed the Budget Control Act, BCA, to cut nearly one trillion of dollars in spending and impose statutory caps on future appropriations. Under Chairman Roger's leadership, we also cut fiscal year 2011 spending to begin to bring spending under control. Today, we consider H.R. 2112, the conference report on three appropriations bills: Agriculture; Commerce, Justice, and Science; and Transportation, Housing and Urban Development. Republicans control the House, but with the Senate and the White House controlled by leaders who want to increase spending, and not reduce it, our ability to address this problem is limited. I know our Appropriations Committee has worked hard to try to hold the line on spending. Despite the challenges our Appropriations Committee faced, I have serious concerns regarding the precedent it sets for future spending. H.R. 2112 provides a total of $130.4 billion in new spending, including $2.3 billion of ``disaster relief'' funding. Excluding the disaster funding the bills are $757 million below the levels funded in 2011. Including the disaster relief funding the bills are $1.6 billion above the 2011 levels. In addition, this bill uses changes in mandatory spending, CHIMPS, which are temporary savings, to offset what I fear will be a permanent increase in the base of non-defense spending. In the House-passed budget, we set a total limit on appropriations of $1.019 trillion for FY 2012. In the Budget Control Act, we increased that limit to $1.043 trillion and got statutory limits on spending for 10 years producing nearly $1 trillion in spending reductions over 10 years. This bill puts us potentially on a very troubling path. The BCA established a new exception to allow funds Congress designates as being for disaster relief to be added on top of the discretionary caps. There is no mandate to increase spending above $1.043 trillion. It is entirely in our control. And, there are conceivably circumstances in which a disaster could be of such severity or immediacy that Congress could choose to provide relief funding above and beyond the discretionary caps. But given the seriousness of the Nation's fiscal problems, such funding should be limited to only the most exigent circumstances. Instead, the Administration and Senate Democrats have insisted on using this disaster relief loophole in a way that, if not closely monitored, will undo the hard-won savings contained in the BCA. The Budget Control Act language allows for the discretionary cap to be raised by as much as the historical average of past disaster spending, which for fiscal year 2012 would amount to a maximum adjustment of $11.3 billion. But rather than reserving this breathing space for truly dire emergencies, the Senate took this as an opportunity to stretch this exception to cover a number of programs that are not considered our primary disaster relief programs. The primary means for providing immediate disaster relief is through FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, DRF, which will be included in a future appropriations bill and for which the Administration requests another $7 billion. But Senate Democrats have expanded disaster relief to programs such as funding for the Economic Development Administration, Community Development Block Grants, and agricultural grants. This is funding in this one bill alone. My concern is that the Senate and Administration will push the disaster relief exception to add even more funding in future bills, as a means of spending above the caps we agreed to as part of the debt limit. The bill also includes $9.1 billion in Changes in Mandatory Program Spending, CHIMPS, that score as savings in the budget year, but that may not actually reduce costs for taxpayers. One provision in this bill related to the Crime Victims Fund creates nominal savings of $6.6 billion this year, essentially offsetting $6.6 billion of other spending in the bill. But all of these savings are reversed in 2013. To the Appropriations Committee's credit, this bill makes some progress in reducing the use of these savings gimmicks--reducing the use of these CHIMPS by about $1 billion compared to last year's bills. But, further vigilance is warranted in the use of such budgetary maneuvers. Lastly, this bill includes a housing rider increasing conforming loan limits for the Federal Housing Administration. Increasing the federal role in housing markets, in this case by increasing housing subsidies, is bad policy. It increases risk and exposure to the taxpayer, who will have to pay for non-performing loans. Bailouts of Fannie and Freddie have cost taxpayers to date about $170 billion due to risky loans in their portfolios. We have to offer real leadership in budgeting if we are to successfully resolve our fiscal challenges. This bill reflects the compromises inherent in divided government and we should recognize it both for the progress it makes and for how much further we have to go.

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 year 2012 and for the 10-year period fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2021. This status report is current through October 4, 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, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012. 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 2012 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 fiscal years 2012 through 2021. ``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 year 2012 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 2013 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 402 of H. Con. Res. 34. This list is needed to enforce section 402 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.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 305 of H. Con. Res. 34, the House-passed budget resolution for fiscal year 2012, deemed to be in force by H. Res. 287, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record revisions to the budget allocations and aggregates set forth pursuant to the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012. Aggregate levels of budget authority, outlays, and revenue are revised and the allocation to the House Committee on Ways and Means is also revised, for fiscal year 2012 and the period of fiscal year 2012 through 2021. The revision is provided for H.R. 2832, legislation extending the Generalized System of Preferences and Trade Adjustment Assistance. Corresponding tables are attached. This revision represents an adjustment for the purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. 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. Section 305 of the budget resolution allows the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget to revise the allocations of spending authority provided to the Committee on Ways and Means for legislation that decreases revenue. The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the allocations and aggregates of this concurrent resolution if such measure would not increase the deficit over fiscal years 2012 through 2021. H.R. 2832 decreases the deficit over this period by $6 million and is hence eligible for these adjustments. Section 407(d) of the budget resolution provides an exemption for legislation for which the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget has made adjustments in the allocations or aggregates of the resolution and that complies with such resolution. This subsection specifically provides that: ``Any legislation for which the chairman of the Committee on the Budget makes adjustments in the allocations and aggregates of this concurrent resolution on the budget and complies with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall not be subject to the points of order set forth in clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives or section 405.'' The table that follows indicates what these adjustments are.