Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, this is just long overdue. This creates jobs. There is an issue that comes to the floor that has bipartisan support rarely these days. The Obama administration estimates this will create 250,000 new jobs. We agree. With respect to Colombia in particular, they have free access to our markets, but we don't have free access to theirs. This gives us a level and equal playing field. Colombia is our strongest ally in the region. Colombia has done so much to help stop the proliferation of drugs coming into this country. They've helped us at the U.N. More importantly, they want to buy our products. Where I come from, Mr. Speaker, we make things and we grow things. Twenty percent of all the manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin require exports; $16.7 billion of our agricultural products in Wisconsin in 2009 were in exports, creating 200,000 jobs in Wisconsin alone. Ninety-five percent of the world's consumers, they're not in this country; they're in other countries. If you're standing still in trade, you're falling behind. All our trading competitors are going around the world getting better agreements and better deals for their exporters, freezing us out. It's high time we pass these agreements to break down these barriers so that we can make and grow things in America and sell them overseas so we can create jobs. And that's exactly what these three agreements, especially Colombia, do; and I urge its passage.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker. pursuant to section 404 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 budget for fiscal year 2012 as set forth under the provisions of that resolution. 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. The revision is designated for the trade agreement bills H.R. 3078, H.R. 3079, and H.R. 3080. Corresponding tables are attached. 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 404 of H. Con. Res. 34.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to provide explanation and clarification of the intended budget effects from the anomaly related to the U.S. Postal Service that is contained in H.J. Res 79, the Continuing Resolution (CR) for Fiscal Year 2012. H.J. Res. 79 would postpone from September 30, 2011 until November 18, 2011 the payment due from the Postal Service, which is off-budget, to an on-budget account managed by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 requires the Postal Service to make a $5.5 billion payment to OPM by September 30, 2011 to pre-fund retiree health benefits. However, the Postal Service does not currently have adequate funds to make this payment. To address this issue, the CR includes a provision that will delay the payment to provide time for the Postal Service to work with Congress and the Administration to develop a long-term solution. If only the on-budget effects were counted, this delay would score as an increase in spending in 2011, but then produce savings in 2012, resulting in additional room for spending under the caps on discretionary spending established in the Budget Control Act of 2011. To prevent this unintended consequence, the House Budget Committee scored this anomaly on a unified basis, so that both the on-budget and off-budget effects were counted together. As a result, the 2011 cost and the 2012 savings offset each other and produce a score of zero in the CR. This decision has precedent. A similar provision was included in the FY 2010 short-term CR (P.L. 111-68) where the House scored that provision on a unified basis pursuant to section 426(b) of the 2010 budget resolution. The off-budget status of the U.S. Postal Service creates significant complications for budget enforcement when the agency seeks timing shifts or bailouts from the U.S. Treasury due to financial distress. The House Budget Committee will continue to monitor this anomaly throughout the budget and appropriations process to ensure that it does not result in additional discretionary spending in FY 2012.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, due to a death in my family, I was absent for legislative business on Tuesday, September 20, 2011. As a result, I missed rollcall votes 712-714. Had I been present, I would have cast the following votes: Rollcall 712-H.R. 2944, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, ``yes''; rollcall 713-H.R. 2189, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, ``yes''; rollcall 714-H.R. 2646, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, ``yes.''

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I rise today to provide explanation and clarification of the intended budget effects from the anomaly related to the U.S. Postal Service that is contained in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2608, the Continuing Resolution (CR) for Fiscal Year 2012. The amendment would postpone from September 30, 2011 until November 18, 2011 the payment due from the Postal Service, which is off-budget, to an on-budget account managed by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 requires the Postal Service to make a $5.5 billion payment to OPM by September 30, 2011 to pre-fund retiree health benefits. However, the Postal Service does not currently have adequate funds to make this payment. To address this issue, the CR includes a provision that will delay the payment to provide time for the Postal Service to work with Congress and the administration to develop a long-term solution. If only the on-budget effects were counted, this delay would score as an increase in spending in 2011, but then produce savings in 2012, resulting in additional room for spending under the caps on discretionary spending established in the Budget Control Act of 2011. To prevent this unintended consequence, the House Budget Committee scored this anomaly on a unified basis, so that both the on-budget and off-budget effects were counted together. As the result, the 2011 cost and the 2012 savings offset each other and produce a score of zero in the CR. This decision has precedent. A similar provision was included in the FY 2010 short-term CR (P.L. 111-68) where the House scored that provision on a unified basis pursuant to section 426(b) of the 2010 budget resolution. The off-budget status of the U.S. Postal Service creates significant complications for budget enforcement when the agency seeks timing shifts or bailouts from the U.S. Treasury due to financial distress. The House Budget Committee will continue to monitor this anomaly throughout the budget and appropriations process to ensure that it does not result in additional discretionary spending in FY 2012.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I have serious reservations about H.R. 2887, the ``Surface and Air Transportation Programs Extension Act of 2011.'' H.R. 2887 extends for six months, until March 31, 2012, the current spending levels for the surface transportation authorization SAFETEA- LU. This authorization expired in September 2009 and this will be the 8th short term extension. When this original 5-year authorization was passed, it set spending levels above estimated gas tax revenues with goal of spending down the excess balances in the Highway Trust Fund. Unfortunately, due to a number of factors, such as the economic downturn and more fuel efficient vehicles, the gas tax revenue plateaued while spending remained high. As a result, the Highway Trust Fund is now insolvent and has required almost $35 billion in bailouts since 2008. Without reform, CBO estimates that the Highway account will require another bailout in the first few months of calendar year 2013 and a total of $134 billion in General Fund transfers over the next ten years. The House FY 2012 Budget anticipates a long-term surface transportation authorization bill that keeps the Highway Trust Fund solvent without additional bailouts or gas tax increases. Maintaining the current unsustainable level of spending, even for just another 6 months, worsens the financial condition of the Trust Fund and makes the inevitable task of balancing its spending to meet revenues even more painful. I urge the House and Senate committees of jurisdiction to come to agreement on a new surface transportation bill that streamlines the numerous programs at the Department of Transportation into a smaller number of core highway activities; eliminates diversions to non-highway projects such as bike trails and museums; and eliminates earmarks such as the infamous ``bridge to nowhere.'' H.R. 2887 also extends for four months, until January 31, 2012, current spending levels for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This will be the 22nd short-term extension since the last long term authorization expired in 2007. These programs are long past due for updated and reformed policies. Like current surface transportation spending, the FAA's Airport Improvement Program [AIP] has been spending at unsustainable levels and must be restructured to do more with less. Between 2000 and 2010, spending on the AIP program increased by 47- percent. In light of soaring deficits, these high levels cannot be sustained. The House FY 2012 Budget calls for reasonable spending reductions consistent with H.R. 658, the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011, which maintains the ability for airports to obtain additional non-Federal sources of funding for important infrastructure investments. Surface Transportation and FAA programs are a critical part of a 21st century infrastructure in the United States. We know these programs are outdated and some are on an unsustainable path. While letting these programs expire is not an option, Congress must act quickly to enact fiscally responsible and effective reformed authorizations.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the House Republican Conference, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me just start by saying this, Mr. Speaker, from this debate it's very clear that we have a difference of opinions. We have different philosophies on how to address these issues, but we are coming up to a deadline that we all must recognize: default. So what this has done is it has brought our two parties together. So I would just like to take a second to reflect for a moment that we have a bipartisan compromise here. That doesn't happen all that often around here; so I think that's worth noting. That's a good thing. First off, as my colleague from Texas has just said, this is a down payment on the problem. It's a good step in the right direction, and it is a huge cultural change to this institution. Both parties got us in this mess. Both parties are going to have to work together to get us out of this mess, and the real problem, I would add, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that we spend way more money than we take in. We have to address that. To my friends on the left, I think they would like to take comfort in the fact the way these spending cuts are designed and the way the sequester is designed. To my friends on the right, we are cutting spending. We have been trying to get discretionary caps in law for years. I have been here 13 years trying for it every year, this is the first time. When we ran Congress the last time we were in the majority we couldn't even get it with the Republican Congress. Now we are getting discretionary caps. That's a big achievement. Number two, we used to just rubber stamp these debt limit increases. We used to sneak these debt limit increases in budget resolutions. Now it's out here in plain sight. And what are we doing? We are actually cutting spending while we do this. That's cultural. That's significant. That's a big step in the right direction. We are getting two-thirds of the cuts we wanted in our budget, and, as far as I am concerned, 66 percent in the right direction is a whole lot better than going in the wrong direction. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to a member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 2 minutes at this time, Mr. Speaker. This legislation before us today is a down payment. Does this cut the amount of spending we need to save the country from a debt crisis? No. Our budget does do that. This is two-thirds of the spending cuts we called for in this category of spending, discretionary spending. Is it 100 percent of the cuts we asked for? No, it's two-thirds of the cuts we asked for. What does the President's budget do? It actually spends $130 billion more. I will take two-thirds of the step in the right direction instead of going in the wrong direction, the President's plan. The Congressional Budget Office, we asked them to take a look at the President's framework. The CBO director told me under oath that they can't score speeches. This plan rejects the President's fiscal demands for tax increases, and it rejects his political demands for a blank check to get him through the election. What we are doing here today is getting serious about getting spending under control. The spending cuts that are in this bill were already agreed to by bipartisan talks. Why are people hiding from that? This is the second bill we will have passed to avoid a default. That's responsible. It has been 820 days since the Senate even tried passing a budget. The President, as we know, has yet to offer a plan to fix this problem. We passed a budget to fix this problem. We passed a plan to deal with the debt limit. And now we are passing another plan, based upon mutually agreed to spending cuts that get two-thirds of the cuts we already called for in this category of government. That's reasonable. That's responsible. And that is what we should be doing. Instead, we hear all this empty rhetoric and all this call for a blank check and all these accounting gimmicks and budget gimmicks from the other side who are trying to do everything they can to do anything but cut spending. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. May I inquire of the Chair how much time remains on either side?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I will continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. The gentleman, my friend over from Maryland, keeps talking about the Reid plan, the Senate majority leader over in the Senate. His plan. I've got the CBO score, too. It says it's a $2.7 trillion increase. That means it doesn't raise the debt limit less than we cut spending, so it cuts less. But more importantly, $1.3 trillion of that money is accounting tricks and budget gimmicks. Mr. Speaker, the American people are tired of all of the accounting tricks and the budget gimmicks that go on in Washington. Let me explain what $1.3 trillion of this does. It says that imagine that we're at war for 10 years in Afghanistan and Iraq at surge levels. We assume we're going to be fighting this war for 10 more years with over 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and, oh gosh, wait. We're going to withdraw our troops in 2014. Trillion dollars in savings. I've got a better idea. Let's pass a bill to cover the Moon with yogurt that will cost $5 trillion today. And then let's pass a bill the next day to cancel that bill. We could save $5 trillion. Wait. I got a better idea. Our debt is $14 trillion. Let's come up with a new plan to spend $14 trillion, then rescind it the next day and let's save $14 trillion. This stuff is fiscal fantasy. You can't make this stuff up, Mr. Speaker. Suggesting that we're going to be in a war at these levels for 10 more years when everybody knows we've already decided not to do that, that does not get us $1.3 trillion in spending cuts. Only in Washington can you add up math like that. We need real spending cuts.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself an additional minute to say this is getting serious, Mr. Speaker, very serious. We can't keep spending money we just don't have. Now 42 cents of every dollar coming out of this place is borrowed money. It doesn't just threaten our children and grandchildren any more. It is hurting our economy today. Half of that money is coming from other countries like China. Why on Earth do we want to give the President a blank check to keep doing that, giving our sovereignty and our self-determination to other countries to lend us money to fund our government. Those days have got to end. This bill doesn't cut as much as we want. We passed a budget cut $6.2 trillion in real spending cuts. This cuts about a trillion. Let's cut this trillion, bank that money, and then go cut some more. That's what we're trying to do to be responsible. The problem in this town is not that we don't tax Americans enough. The problem is we're spending way too much money. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I enjoyed listening to the talking points from my friend. I just don't think they apply to this bill. Russian roulette. This is the second piece of legislation we've brought to the floor to responsibly raise the debt limit while cutting spending. Manufactured crisis. Who went on television to scare senior citizens that their Social Security checks might be in doubt? The President of the United States. Mr. Speaker, the cuts in this bill were agreed to in a bipartisan group. The level of cuts in this bill that go into effect immediately are $2 billion off the Senate majority leader's cuts in his bill. These were agreed to on a bipartisan basis. We're cutting spending not as much as we want, but at least we're cutting spending. Russian roulette is raising the debt limit without getting borrowing under control. A manufactured crisis is trying to scare seniors and the country into giving this government another blank check to keep spending money we don't have. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Guinta.