Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chair, let me address just a few of the issues that I have been hearing here on the floor. I am hearing some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle saying, ``We just can't afford these tax cuts.'' Well, let's look at it. Only in Washington is not raising taxes on people considered a tax cut. What we are talking about here is not cutting taxes. We are talking about keeping taxes where they are and preventing tax increases. The second point: We, meaning the government, can't afford this. Whose money is this, after all? Is all the money that is made in America Washington's money, the government's money, or is it the people's money who earned it? I hear all this talk about the death tax, the estate tax. This is going to give a windfall to these people, all this money going to these privileged people who have built these businesses, made all this money. It's their money. Which is it? Do we have a country built on equal natural rights, where you can make the most of your life, get up, work hard, take risks, become successful, create jobs, grow businesses, do well, earn success, and, yes, pass it on to your kids? What on Earth is wrong with that? That's the American Dream. And to my friends on my side of the aisle who simply don't like some of the spending in this bill, I don't like it either. So let's cut the spending next year when we're in charge. There's junk in the Tax Code. Everybody agrees with this. This is advancing some of the junk in the Tax Code. And what I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle is, next year, let's get rid of that junk in the Tax Code when we're in charge. But right now, let's not hit the American people with a massive tax increase. If we want to get this debt under control, if we want to get our deficit going down, there are two things we need to be doing: We need to cut spending and we need to grow the economy. We need prosperity in this country. We need job creation. We need people going from collecting unemployment to having a job and paying taxes so the revenues can reduce the deficit. And if we raise taxes, even the Congressional Budget Office is telling us, if this bill fails and these tax increases continue, we're going to lose 1.25 million jobs next year. Do we want to do that? Low tax rates give us economic growth. Low tax rates make us competitive in the international economy. Low tax rates allow businesses to plan. Is this a growth package? No, it's not a growth package. You know why it's not a growth package? Because it still proposes to move this uncertainty forward. It's only a 2-year extension. So we're not talking about a pro-growth economic package, but we're talking about preventing a destructive economic package from being inflicted on the American people in about 2 weeks. The last thing you want to do is put more uncertainty in the economy, hit the economy with a huge tax increase, trigger a stock market sell-off, and lose jobs. So do we want to make these permanent? You bet we do. And that's exactly what we're going to be advancing. But the last thing we want to do is inject more uncertainty, raise taxes. We need economic growth. We need spending cuts. That's exactly what we intend on doing. And I think that's the message the voters sent us here. So let's prevent this tax increase from happening. Let's clean up the stuff we don't like in this bill next year. And let's make sure that when people go to Christmas, they know they're not going to have a massive tax increase 5 days later. Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that is necessary to prevent our economy from getting worse. This is not a bill that's going to turn it around. Next year, let's pass the policies that will turn this economy around.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank my colleagues on a bipartisan basis for doing this. As the chief sponsor of this, I rise in support of H.R. 5873, which would designate the United States Postal facility at 218 North Milwaukee Street in Waterford, Wisconsin, as the ``Captain Rhett W. Schiller Post Office.'' In 1999 I had the pleasure of appointing Rhett, Captain Schiller, to the United States Military Academy at West Point, an institution from which he subsequently graduated with a major in Chinese. Following his graduation, Captain Schiller was assigned to the 82nd Airborne at Fort Bragg, first as a platoon leader in Company B and later as an executive officer for Company A of the 3rd Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment. In 2006 he was assigned to the 5th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division. Very cool. It was in this capacity that he was deployed to Iraq as part of a Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition Team. On his 100th day in the country, while leading a squad of six paratroopers and six Iraqi Army soldiers, Captain Schiller's unit came under small arms fire during a canal cleaning operation. Captain Schiller was killed in action on November 16, 2006. He has earned the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Iraqi Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Army Ranger Tab, the Expert Infantryman Badge, the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Master Parchutist Badge, and he graduated as the honor graduate from his Reconnaissance and Surveillance Leadership course. Captain Schiller also qualified for the Army Commendation Medal. I knew Rhett Schiller. He was a young man coming out of Waterford, Wisconsin, in Racine County, idealistic, energetic, extraordinarily gifted, and patriotic. He became a leader in our military in the Army. He served under the command of a very personal close friend of mine, Colonel Andy Poppas from Janesville, Wisconsin, who I grew up with, who also went to West Point, and was his commanding officer. When we heard that he was killed in action, Andy and I had emailed each other at that time about this. Colonel Poppas emailed Rhett's dad, who had put long years over at S.C. Johnson Wax. From his own commanding officer, who, like I said, is a good friend of mine, this is a story of a man who was brave. This is a story of a man who cared about his country and who cared about the men and women he served with and who put himself in harm's fire so that he could protect those around him, those he was serving with. And this is the stuff that makes our country great. It is this kind of dedication, this kind of sacrifice that the best and brightest within our communities come to the military to serve our country and all that it stands for. This is why we do these bills, why we do this dedication, and why it is so wholly proper and fitting to dedicate this post office in Waterford, Wisconsin, the ``Captain Rhett W. Schiller Post Office.'' I'm so proud to do this. I am pleased that my entire Wisconsin delegation are cosponsors of this legislation so that we can have this proper and fitting memorial so that when young people go through the post office, they will know that one among their ranks in their community stood up, offered bravery, service to country. And that is the kind of example that makes this country the freest, greatest, most exceptional, and prosperous country in the world. And I'm just so proud to have known Rhett Schiller and so proud to actually sponsor this legislation.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I, along with Representatives Dave Camp of Michigan and Jeb Hensarling of Texas, submit the following statement for the Record with respect to the Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair on the Price (R-GA) Lame-Duck Privileged Resolution. As members of the Fiscal Commission, we are dedicated to getting spending under control and meaningfully addressing our fast-growing and unsustainable deficits. If the Commission reaches a bipartisan consensus, it is our hope that House and Senate leadership would work on a bipartisan basis to determine how and when those recommendations would be brought to the floor. There is no greater crisis facing America than the unchecked growth of spending that is fueling massive increases in our deficits.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a rule, not a budget, really not a budget enforcement system. We have a rule that will deem to the Appropriations Committee $1.1 trillion to spend on discretionary spending. This really is an unprecedented occurrence here on the House floor, because what is happening is we are marking a moment for the first time since the budget system was created in 1974 that dictated how Congress does budgets. For the first time since the 1974 Budget Act, the modern budgeting system in Congress, the House isn't going to do a budget. The House is not going to do a budget. They will call this rule budget enforcement, but all it really is is giving up $1 trillion to the Appropriations Committee to spend. No budget, no priorities, no restraints, just turn the spending system on. Now, the majority talks about PAYGO as their budget enforcement. With all due respect, I think PAYGO is a sham, and whenever it is not circumvented, whenever it is actually applied, it is usually used to raise taxes on the American people. Another problem, Mr. Speaker, is what they are talking about in this rule is that the President's Fiscal Commission will assemble and bring a recommendation in December, and that will serve as our budget this year, or something to that effect. I am a member of the Fiscal Commission. I hope that we actually do come up with some concrete answers and some fiscal steps in the right direction. But what is the Fiscal Commission? It is a commission appointed by Executive order by the President of the United States. So in effect are we saying that we are going to delegate the legislative branch's authority and responsibility to budget the power of the purse to an executive branch commission? Are we now simply saying that the President will appoint people and they will write the budget? Whatever happened to protecting the separation of powers? Whatever happened to Congress actually doing its job? Whatever happened to actually passing a budget? So, what we have here is we have a very tough election year, I suppose, and people don't want to do a budget. But they want to spend. So, for the first time, for the first time since the 1974 Budget Act was in place, the House isn't even doing a budget. We are going to spend the money, but we are not going to account for it. We are not going to prioritize. So when you take a look at the budget we are living under, the one that passed last year, the first Obama budget, that is the budget that is the incumbent budget. What does that budget do? It doubles our debt in 5 years and triples our debt in 10 years. Our debt just hit the $13 trillion mark. We are watching Europe in the throes of a debt crisis because they borrowed too much money, they taxed too much, they slowed down their economies, and now they are in crisis mode. Well, that is exactly what is going to happen here if we don't get our fiscal house in order. That is exactly what the credit markets are going to do to us if we don't show that we are serious about our fiscal responsibilities. So what is the primary responsibility of the legislative branch of government? Budgeting. And what is this majority doing? They are not budgeting. We are deeming. We are deeming $1.1 trillion so we can start spending. Not budgeting; spending. No restraints, no priorities. Spending. Mr. Speaker, I really worry about this. I worry a lot about this, because I worry we are sending all the signals--the wrong signals; the wrong signals to the economy, to businesses, to the credit markets, to entrepreneurs, that the Americans don't have their fiscal house in order, that our government isn't functioning because it is not budgeting. That is a shame. We should reject this and get on to the business of actually budgeting.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the sentiment from my friend and colleague from Wisconsin. We introduced this legislation together. We have 76 cosponsors. It's a very simple issue. Number one, we have a Pittman-Robertson fund, which is a user-fee for hunting and fishing. If you buy firearms, you buy ammunition, there is an excise tax that is paid which goes to the Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund for conservation and habitat management. As the cochair of the Sportsmen's Caucus here in Congress, the largest bipartisan, bicameral caucus in Congress, our job in the caucus is to make sure that we protect not only hunting and fishing rights, but also hunting and fishing habitat. And there is a snafu in the law here, and that's simply what we are trying to clear up. This is a bill that's fully paid for. This bill is very, very simple. Most of Pittman-Robertson taxes are collected on a quarterly basis. Unfortunately, though, with respect to ammunition and firearms, it's done on a biweekly basis. That is a huge unnecessary burden for manufacturers. There are lots of small manufacturers, Kolar in Racine, Premium Shotguns, you name it. There are lots of small manufacturers out there, and they don't get the cash flow through their business to be able to pay this excise tax on this biweekly basis. They don't get the money from the retailers in time to cover the tax expenses. And therefore what's happening is we are making these manufacturers, especially the smaller ones, have to go out and get loans in order to pay the excise taxes. All this simply does is harmonize the tax payments schedule to jibe with the other excise taxes that are paid into the Pittman-Robertson fund to a quarterly basis. That simple. So let's take away this very burdensome regulation, this very burdensome tax compliance regime on small and large manufacturers of firearms and ammunition, harmonize it with the rest of the Pittman- Robertson excise tax collection system, and make sure that these small businesses, which are really struggling, which are the backbone of the conservation funding system, which are huge providers of jobs and recreation in States like Wisconsin and all throughout America, let's just get this cleaned up. Let's pass it. It's bipartisan. It's paid for. This is one of those issues that's sort of rare these days where we have come together to get something that makes perfect common sense. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I simply want to say this is a commonsense solution that ought to be passed. It harmonizes the schedule. It takes a burden off of businesses, and I think the gentleman from California put it well. Yesterday, we saw a great strike for liberty from the Supreme Court where they reaffirmed the individual's right to keep and bear arms in this country. That is now an issue that has been set by the Supreme Court where individuals have rights in this Nation and that the job of government is to protect our equal, natural rights. So I think it is very fitting that this, on the day after the Supreme Court reaffirmed the individual's right to keep and bear arms, regardless of where they live in America, as citizens of America, that we ought to help ease this burden on the manufacturers of firearms and of ammunition so that they can get back to the business not of just tax collecting on a biweekly basis but of producing, of selling, of creating jobs, and of getting this country moving again. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a distinguished senior member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I voted for this legislation because it avoided deep reductions to Medicare physician pay but was offset to avoid any increase in the deficit. While I support this legislation, I have some concerns about where this leads us in the future. First, this legislation illustrates why we must fundamentally reform Medicare. Our Nation's physicians who treat Medicare beneficiaries currently face a 21 percent reduction. It is critically important that we correct this. Although this legislation provides a much-needed temporary solution, it makes the Medicare physician problem even greater when this short-term fix expires in six months, requiring a 26 percent reduction to payment rates. That is completely untenable. Unfortunately, that is precisely the path that the health care bill enacted earlier this year puts us on. In addition to Medicare and Medicaid's obligations, that bill created two new health care entitlements. I think this legislation is the sign of things to come. We will increasingly face difficult reductions to medical providers or require that health care be rationed through government bureaucracies. We will be told that to avoid this we need to either run up the debt or raise taxes on the American people. I think that is a false choice and we should instead fundamentally reform these programs to put them on a sustainable path. Second, I have some concerns with the pension relief provisions of this bill. Companies are struggling to get by due to a stagnant economy. This legislation will provide temporary pension relief. Under our cash-based budget, these pension relief provisions produce savings over the next ten years. We do not have a full analysis of the long- term consequences of the pension provisions, but it appears these savings are likely to be more than offset by greater federal obligations that will appear outside the ten year window we use to enforce the budget. While this pension relief may make sense in today's economic environment, we need to explore the budgetary impact of these pension provisions to get a better understanding of the full impact before we pursue this as an offset for future legislation.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, Last week, the House of Representatives considered an amendment offered by Congressman Patrick Murphy to H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, to repeal the Armed Forces personnel policy of ``don't ask, don't tell.'' Due to a death in the family, I was not present for the vote on the House floor. Had I been present, I would have voted against this amendment. While I believe no American should be denied the ability to serve their country because of their sexual orientation, it is important to balance this commitment to serve with the practical implications of this dramatic policy change. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff repeatedly asked Congress to allow the Department of Defense the time to complete its comprehensive review of ``don't ask, don't tell'' before taking legislative action to change this policy. These requests were denied by the Majority, whose actions imply that Members of Congress are in a better position to determine personnel policies than military leaders themselves. We have a responsibility to consider the views of those men and women in uniform, and a duty to allow the leaders of our Armed Forces to finish their review before taking premature legislative action. By refusing to take into consideration the ongoing review by the Department of Defense, the Majority risks undermining the relationship between our elected leaders and the men and women serving our Nation. I have serious concerns with the potential for this preemptive decision to negatively impact our military's ability to recruit, retain, and ready servicemembers now and in the future.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, last week, due to a death in the family, I was not present to vote on the House floor. Had I been present, I would have cast the following votes: Rollcall 291: H. Con. Res. 278 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree--``yes.'' Rollcall 292: H.R. 1017 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass as Amended--``yes.'' Rollcall 293:. H.R. 5330 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--``yes.'' Rollcall 294: H.R. 5145 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--``yes.'' Rollcall 295: H. Res. 1258 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended--``yes.'' Rollcall 296: H. Res. 1382 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree-- ``yes.'' Rollcall 297: H. Res. 584 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree-- ``yes.'' Rollcall 298: H.R. 3885 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass-- ``yes.'' Rollcall 299: H.R. 2711 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Concur in the Senate Amendments--``yes.'' Rollcall 300: H. Res. 1189 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree-- ``yes.'' Rollcall 301: H. Res. 1172 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree-- ``yes.'' Rollcall 302: H. Res. 1347 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree-- ``yes.'' Rollcall 303: H. Res. 1385 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree-- ``yes.'' Rollcall 304: H. Res. 1316 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree as Amended--``yes.'' Rollcall 305: H. Res. 1169 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended--``yes.'' Rollcall 306: H. Con. Res. 282 On Agreeing to the Resolution--``no.'' Rollcall 307: H. Res. 1404 On Agreeing to the Resolution--``no.'' Rollcall 308: H. Res. 1161 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree-- ``yes.'' Rollcall 309: H. Res. 1372 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree-- ``yes.'' Rollcall 310: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``yes.'' Rollcall 311: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``yes.'' Rollcall 312: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.'' Rollcall 313: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``yes.'' Rollcall 314: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.'' Rollcall 315: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.'' Rollcall 316: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``yes.'' Rollcall 317: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.'' Rollcall 318: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``yes.'' Rollcall 319: H.R. 5136 On Approving the Journal--``no.'' Rollcall 320: H. Res. 1391 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended--``yes.'' Rollcall 321: H. Res. 1403 On Ordering the Previous Question--``no.'' Rollcall 322: H. Res. 1403 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.'' Rollcall 323: H. Res. 1403 On Agreeing to the Resolution, as Amended--``no.'' Rollcall 324: H.R. 4213 On Concurring in the Senate amdt with amdt (except portion comprising section 532--``no.'' Rollcall 325: H.R. 4123 On concurring in Senate amdt with portion of amdt comprising section 523--``no.'' Rollcall 326: H.R. 5116 First Portion of the Divided Question-- ``yes.'' Rollcall 327: H.R. 5116 Second Portion of the Divided Question-- ``yes.'' Rollcall 328: H.R. 5116 Sixth Portion of the Divided Question-- ``yes.'' Rollcall 329: H.R. 5116 Seventh Portion of the Divided Question-- ``yes.'' Rollcall 330: H.R. 5116 Eighth Portion of the Divided Question-- ``yes.'' Rollcall 331: H.R. 5116 Ninth Portion of the Divided Question-- ``yes.'' Rollcall 332: H.R. 5116 On Passage--``no.'' Rollcall 333: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the En Bloc Amendments, as Modified--``yes.'' Rollcall 334: H.R. 5136 Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair-- ``no.'' Rollcall 335: H.R. 5136 On Motion to Recommit with Instructions-- ``yes.'' Rollcall 336: H.R. 5136 On Passage--``no.''

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute and to say thank you to Martin Leonard Skutnik. Lenny is retiring after 30 years of service to the Congressional Budget Office. As you know, Madam Speaker, the Budget Committee relies heavily on CBO and on the professionalism, dedication, and competence of its staff--and those are the very traits I think of when I think of Lenny Skutnik: professional, dedicated, and competent. Lenny paid perhaps one of the highest compliments an employee can pay to his employer when he said recently that he was ``proud to have been a part of it [CBO].'' That pride was evident in his work and the support he provided CBO in ensuring its products were printed and disseminated in a timely manner. Lenny had a career at CBO of which he can be proud and Lenny--through his unforgettable actions on a cold day in January nearly 30 years ago--filled this nation with pride even as we watched the fate of Air Florida Flight 90 in horror. On that January 13th, which will forever be remembered by those who then lived and worked in and around Washington, DC, Lenny provided a very real face to heroism. Lenny pushed his own safety to the back of his mind, defied logic, and willingly jumped into the icy waters of the Potomac to help those in need. Lenny's humility and grace keep him from acknowledging he did anything extraordinary, yet we know differently. Lenny's actions provide inspiration to us all and provide a vivid example for us to use when describing the concept of heroism to our children. Madam Speaker, the Congress was fortunate to have Lenny Skutnik as an employee for the last 30 years and this nation is proud to call Lenny one of its own. I wish him a long, healthy, and happy retirement. He has earned it.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 1203 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act which causes a violation of section 426(a).

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

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I reserve my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, we can do better. It doesn't have to be this way. This is not democracy. This is not good government. One of the cornerstone principles of this Nation that the Founders created is the principle that we govern by consent of the governed. That principle is being turned on its head here today. More to the point, the shame of all of this is we have been offering constructive solutions from the very beginning. We have asked you to work with us on a bipartisan basis, step by step, piece by piece, work on the uninsured, work on preexisting conditions, work on costs, work on prices, work on the deficit. All along the other side said ``no,'' we are doing it our way, one-party rule. This bill clearly violates the House rules. We shouldn't be waiving our own rules and imposing these costly mandates. We are going to hear many emotional appeals today. Let me tell you a little bit about my own. I have the best mother-in-law a man could ever ask for. She is 5 years facing stage 3 ovarian cancer, and she is still fighting it because of a drug called Avastin that is keeping her alive. Well, if she was a British citizen, she wouldn't have it because they deny this drug to their cancer patients. We are setting up the identical same bureaucracies they have there here. This bill explodes the deficit, it explodes the debt, and the only way to fix it is to put that kind of rationing in place. That is not what our government should be doing. This bill is a fiscal Frankenstein. It is a government takeover. It is not democratic. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, it is not too late to get it right. Let's start over, let's defeat this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, let me just quote from a letter to the Speaker of the House by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office dated yesterday: ``The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the total cost of those mandates to State, local and tribal governments and the private sector would greatly exceed the annual thresholds established under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.'' Mr. Speaker, this bill is the mother of all unfunded mandates. There are mandates on States. The new Medicaid mandate is expected to cost, according to the CBO, an additional $20 billion on States. Let's start with the State mandate, $20 billion on States in Medicaid. Democratic Governors have been speaking out against this. Let me quote Governor Rendell from Pennsylvania: ``I think it's an unfunded mandate. We just don't have the wherewithal to absorb this health care bill without some new revenue source.'' There is an individual mandate. It mandates individuals purchase government-approved health insurance or face a fine to be collected by the IRS which will need $10 billion additional and 16,500 new IRS agents to police and enforce this mandate. There is a business mandate. It mandates businesses provide government-approved health insurance or face penalties. If you don't offer health insurance coverage, you have to pay $2,000 per employee. If you do offer health insurance coverage, but one of your employees decides to take the Federal subsidy, you have to pay up to $3,000 per employee anyway. There's a health plan mandate. There are mandates on health plans to comply with new Federal benefits, mandates without any funds to meet these new requirements. There are new medical loss ratios of 80 and 85 percent. This hardly jives with the notion, If you like what you have, you can keep it, because millions of Americans will exactly lose just that. There's a provider mandate. This mandates that many health care providers must actually provide exactly what Washington says. They're forced to take unilateral reimbursement cuts from the new independent payment advisory board. Mr. Speaker, at this time I want to elaborate quite a bit more, but I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. May I inquire how much time is remaining between the two sides, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield myself the remainder of our Budget Committee time. Mr. Speaker, there's a lot wrong with this bill. We know the problems with its costs. We know it doesn't really reduce the deficit. We know premiums are going to go up. The CBO has given us all this information and it's clear that we have a bill that is chock full of gimmicks and hidden mandates. I'm not going to get into all of that again, but what I want to ask is this: Why has this decision become so personal to our constituents? Why are so many people swarming the Capitol today? Why have we received a hundred thousand calls an hour from around the country? It's because health care affects every one of us. And yet, here we are, debating whether the government should have a bigger role in making those personal decisions. So make no mistake about it. We are not just here to pass a health care bill. We are being asked to make a choice about the future path of this country. The speakers to my left are correct: this is history. Today marks a major turning point in American history. This is really not a debate about prices, coverage, or choosing doctors. This is ultimately about what kind of country we are going to be in the 21st century. America is not just a nationality. It's not just a massive land from Hawaii to Maine, from Wisconsin to Florida. America is an idea. It's the most pro-human idea ever designed by mankind. Our Founders got it right when they wrote in the Declaration of Independence that our rights come from nature and nature's God--not from government. Should we now subscribe to an ideology where government creates rights, is solely responsible for delivering these artificial rights, and then systematically rations these rights? Do we believe that the goal of government is to promote equal opportunity for all Americans to make the most of their lives, or do we now believe the government's role is to equalize the results of people's lives? The philosophy advanced on this floor by this majority today is so paternalistic and so arrogant. It's condescending, and it tramples upon the principles that have made America so exceptional. My friends, we are fast approaching a tipping point where more Americans depend upon the Federal Government than upon themselves for their livelihoods, a point where we, the American people, trade in our commitment and our concern for individual liberties in exchange for government benefits and dependences. More to the point, Mr. Speaker, we have seen this movie before, and we know how it ends. The European-style social welfare state promoted by this legislation is not sustainable. This is not who we are and it is not who we should become. As we march toward this tipping point of dependency, we are also accelerating toward a debt crisis; a debt crisis that is the result of the politicians of the past making promises we simply cannot afford to keep. Deja vu all over again. It's unconscionable what we are leaving the next generation. This moment may mark a temporary conclusion of the health care debate, but its place in history has not yet been decided. If this passes, the request to reclaim the American idea is not over. The fight to reapply our founding principles is not finished. It is just a steeper hill to climb, and it is a climb that we will make. On this issue, more than any other issue we have ever seen here, the American people are engaged. From our town hall meetings to Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts, you have made your voices heard and some of us are listening to you. My colleagues, let's bring down this bill and bring back the ideas that made this country great.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the vice ranking member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, for over a year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has been working on literally a non- stop basis on this legislation. Their objective non-partisan analysis is critical to us as we develop legislation. I want to thank Director Elmendorf and all at CBO for their service to Congress in providing analysis and budget estimates on this legislation. In addition, we held a markup last week on Monday that ran until nearly midnight. The House Budget Committee staff and staff in my personal office spent last weekend, all this past week, and this weekend working on this legislation. I want to thank them for their work on this legislation. A list of the staff appears below. House Budget Committee Republican Staff Tim Flynn (Chief Economist); Chauncey Goss (Deputy Staff Director); Matt Hoffman (Legislative Director, Office of Congressman Ryan); Charlotte Ivancic (Counsel and Budget Analyst); Patrick L. Knudsen (Policy Director); Angela Kuck (Communications Director); John Gray (Budget Analyst); Jim Herz (Budget Analyst and Budget Review); Courtney Reinhard (Counsel and Budget Analyst); Paul Restuccia (Chief Counsel and Budget Analyst); Jonathan Romito (Budget Analyst and Executive Assistant); Austin Smythe (Staff Director); Conor Sweeney (Deputy Communications Director); Dennis Teti (Senior Advisor); Dana Wade (Budget Analyst); and Ted McCann (Budget Analyst).