Paul Ryan

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).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievements of Alyson Dudek, a native of Hales Corners, Wisconsin, who along with her teammates--Lana Gehring, Katherine Reutter, and Allison Baver--won the bronze medal in the 3000-meter short track relay at the 2010 Winter Olympics. This performance ended a sixteen-year medal drought for the United States in the event and Alyson's impressive effort was another memorable instance of Wisconsin athletes admirably representing our country at the Olympic Games in Vancouver. On behalf of all Wisconsinites, I want to congratulate Alyson on her accomplishments in the 3000-meter and 500-meter short track speed skating events. The 2010 Winter Olympic Games showed yet again the inspiring skills and talents of Wisconsin natives who participated and medaled in a number of different disciplines. Alyson's exemplary performance in both the individual 500-meter event and 3000-meter relay in Vancouver capped off a tremendous skating season and it is my pleasure to congratulate Alyson, her family, coaches, and teammates on this achievement. I am proud to recognize Alyson Dudek and all the members of the 2010 United States Olympic Team for their inspiring performance, breaking a record with 37 medals, and for their admirable representation of our country.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

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

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Speaker, we need to step up to the plate. Look at what is happening with the current government right now. I have three children. They are 5 years old, 6 years old, and our oldest just turned 8. For the last 40 years, the size of our government has been remarkably consistent, about 20 percent of the economy. Meaning we have taken 20 cents out of every dollar made in America to go to the Federal Government. When my three children are my age, the current government we have right now, this is before you would even pass the President's budget, that current government goes to 40 percent of our economy. You will have to take 40 cents out of every dollar made in America just to keep the government we have now in place at that time, doubling the taxes on the next generation. I asked the Congressional Budget Office what would the income tax rates have to be to support all of this when my kids are my age? The lowest tax bracket, which is now at 10 percent, they said that would have to go to 25 percent. The middle income tax brackets for middle income families go up to 66 percent. Top tax bracket on small businesses, 88 percent. Madam Speaker, we know we are crashing our economy with this borrow- and-spend mentality. And all of that is PAYGO compliant. This is not budget discipline, it is an illusion. Let's come together and fix this problem. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The Speaker of the House came and just said something to the effect that this was a proud moment, a happy occasion, a bill she's really excited about. The bill we're about to vote on, Madam Speaker, raises the national debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion. Even if I were a supporter of this bill, I wouldn't be proud of it. I'm taking a look at the President's budget. On page 172, table S-9, the President's PAYGO proposal says that at the end of the budget window we can spend another $473 billion. So we're saying all the debt that's going up, the tripling of the national debt that we're giving to our kids and grandkids, not only does that comply with PAYGO, we can go ahead and spend another $473 billion on top of it. This, Madam Speaker, is a fiscal charade. Real people from both parties need to step up and solve this problem. I have thrown out a few ideas of my own. I hope other Republicans and Democrats do the same. Because, Madam Speaker, if we don't tackle this problem, it's going to tackle us. Our constituents sent us here to be a part of a solution and not a part of the problem. We know irrefutably we're going to bequeath this mountain of deficit and debt onto the next generation. Both of our parties share the blame. No one party corners the virtue on fiscal responsibility. But we're going to, together, have to come down here and fix this problem once and for all. And doing this doesn't do it. Doing this is a cop-out. Doing this raises the debt limit $1.9 trillion and gives us a fiscal cop-out so we can go talk tough in the election about how we did this and that while we bequeath the next generation an inferior standard of living. I didn't come here to make sure that my three kids are going to have a life that's worse off than ours. Nobody here wants that. So let's get this fixed, defeat this bill, come together, and do real fiscal discipline. The American people are under attack. We overspend.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Madam Speaker, the vote we are having here today is not a vote for PAYGO, or whatever we want to call it. It is a vote to raise the debt ceiling. It is a vote to raise the debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion. The majority might argue this isn't about the debt, but let's not be fooled. This is about a debt ceiling. Treasury has to raise it because we have had this incredible spending spree, and we are on an unsustainable trajectory of more debt. Now, let's take a look at where we are right now. Right now, the burden of the debt on our economy is 60 percent. That is worse than what is required in Europe, because under this budget that is passing, it goes up to 77 percent of our economy by the end of the President's budget. Now, already, foreigners hold about half of our debt, and China lends us the most. The problem we have, Madam Speaker, is that the Chinese aren't going to keep lending us all their money. Let me tell you a little bit about what will happen to America. The debt trajectory we are on will weaken America. The debt goes to catastrophic levels in this country which will destroy our economy-- that is a tough word--and for sure give the next generation an inferior standard of living. These are facts. They are not opinions. Now, one thing that I find interesting about PAYGO is the budget that we are living under right now doubles and triples our debt in 10 years, and it is all PAYGO compliant. The debt skyrockets under the current budget, and it all does so within PAYGO. And if you actually look at the President's budget, it says: with this PAYGO rule, not only will the debt triple in 10 years, but we will have another $473 billion under PAYGO to spend on top of that. That is what PAYGO does, Madam Speaker. PAYGO has been in place before. We have seen it. It started in 2007 when the Democrats took over Congress. At that time, when PAYGO was put in place, we had a $161 billion deficit. We have a $1.6 trillion deficit now. Forty percent of the entire budget is exempt from PAYGO. It does not do a thing at all to reduce the deficits. In fact, what PAYGO does is it locks in the deficits at its current levels, and it doesn't address the spending crisis. Not only is spending growing at an unsustainable rate, not only are entitlements growing themselves right into bankruptcy, not only are we looking at bankruptcy of Medicare, Society Security, and Medicaid right around the corner. PAYGO is ripe with loopholes. It exempts 40 percent of spending, as I mentioned. It exempts mandatory spending on appropriation bills. It exempts all spending designed as emergencies, and more than 160 programs are exempt from its enforcement. The point is this, Madam Speaker: my greatest concern is that if we pass this illusion of fiscal control, that will replace any real fiscal spending control whatsoever. It is good talk. It sounds good. When you look at the details, it accomplishes nothing. And when it is ever applied, it is only to chase higher spending with higher taxes. We should reject this and start over. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming, a distinguished member of the Budget Committee, Mrs. Lummis.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the vice ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and congratulate Ms. Karen Nesbit of Franklin, Wisconsin. Ms. Nesbit was recently awarded the 2008 Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching. The Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching Program recognizes outstanding teachers across the country for their contributions to the academic and personal development of students in science and mathematics. Ms. Nesbit has been an educator for 23 years. She has taught in the Franklin Public School District since 1990, and currently teaches first grade at Pleasant View Elementary School. The education of our youth is very important to the continued success of our communities and our country. It is through the dedication of teachers such as Ms. Nesbit that students and are well-equipped with the knowledge and skills they need for their future. On behalf of those I represent in the 1st District of Wisconsin, I extend my gratitude and congratulations to Ms. Karen Nesbit.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, in September of 2008, credit markets seized up. Many did not understand the full ramifications of the financial crisis at the time that has since resulted in a deep recession with high unemployment. To respond to that crisis, Congress came together on a bipartisan basis and enacted the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, EESA, that included the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP. During the debate on that bill, there was tremendous controversy over the $700 billion in authority the administration was seeking to help stabilize financial markets and to avoid a much more severe economic crisis. Treasury was ultimately granted this extraordinary authority, but Congress included many key taxpayer protections. Among those protections, we wanted to make sure that TARP did not become a piggy bank for Congress to use to fund other programs. The Senate has a budget procedure that is designed to keep funding designated as an emergency from being used as an offset in the future for budget enforcement purposes. The House does not have this procedure for mandatory spending bills, such as the TARP, or tax legislation. It was agreed to at that time that TARP funds could not be used as an offset for new programs or tax reductions for the purposes of budget enforcement. The EESA designated TARP as an emergency for the purposes of Senate enforcement. In the House, the budget is enforced through clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the pay-as-you-go rule, and the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. In order to assure this, Section 204 of the TARP law includes the following language: ``rescissions of any amounts provided in this Act shall not be counted for purposes of budget enforcement.'' This language can only mean one of two things: (1) It means legislation considered by the House of Representatives must find other offsets for new spending or tax reductions and may not use unexpended TARP resources to comply with budget-related points of order; or (2) It means nothing. The budget and the treatment of TARP and emergencies is a technical matter and it posed a challenge to draft this language under the extraordinary circumstances and pressures involved in the drafting of the EESA. However, the clear intent of the counsels involved in the drafting of the specific legislative language was that TARP should not be used to fund new programs, the expansion of existing programs, or for tax reductions. The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, H.R. 4173, includes language effectively cancelling $10.2 billion in TARP funds in order to offset the effects of increased spending, and only by virtue of the TARP funds, is considered to abide by the pay-as-you-go point of order. Using TARP to offset new programs is clearly inconsistent with the agreement on the TARP and the EESA when it was enacted on a bipartisan basis in 2008 and I believe it is inconsistent with a plain reading of the law. This was an instance when we were working together and it is unfortunate that the law and the rules are now being interpreted to allow the TARP to become a piggy bank to increase spending, deficits, and debt.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, H.R. 4173, The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, presents a host of new financial rules and regulations and even establishes a new Federal agency, with an advertised goal of minimizing the risk of a future economic crisis like the one we've seen over the past 2 years. But Congress could go a long way toward preventing such damaging boom and bust cycles by changing its existing mandate for one of the most important stewards of our economy: the Federal Reserve. The Humphrey Hawkins Full Employment Act of 1978 directed the Fed to focus on two goals that are often at odds: maximizing employment over the short-run while guaranteeing price stability over the long-term. This dual mandate has put the Fed in an impossible situation with regard to managing the economy. Multiple goals that may sometimes be in conflict can increase the chance of an important miscalculation. Monetary policy, in fact, played a key role in this latest economic crisis. The Federal Reserve held interest rates too low for too long earlier this decade, sparking an expansion of credit that fueled a housing bubble that eventually burst and caused an all-out crisis. As we emerge from this recession, I fear that we may be on the cusp of yet another damaging cycle. If the Fed is too slow to act in withdrawing its substantial stimulus as the economy recovers, we will end up with a nasty bout of inflation in the coming years. And the Fed would then have to slam on the brakes and hike interest rates to wring inflation out of the system, costing growth and jobs in the process. We need to stop this roller coaster ride. That is why I offered an amendment to this bill that would repeal the Humphrey Hawkins Act and make price stability the Fed's sole mandate. This change is meant to re-focus the Fed on its core mission and make sure that we get one of the key fundamentals of the economy right. Price stability, after all, is a necessary precondition for economic growth, job creation and sound money. A focused and clear mandate from Congress would also increase the Fed's transparency and accountability at a time when many are seeking more information about the actions of our central bank. Unfortunately, my amendment was not made in order by the Rules Committee. In response to the recent crisis, the Fed has had to take a variety of unorthodox measures to stabilize our credit markets and resuscitate the economy. Many in Congress have felt unease as the Fed has taken emergency actions to rescue individual companies and launch a variety of new credit facilities for an increasing number of banks, financial institutions and even investors. I share this unease and I believe that Congress should have the ability to gather information about these actions and new facilities, with appropriate safeguards and time lags. But I also believe that we must preserve the existing restrictions on opening up monetary policy deliberations and actions to a government audit. Even the appearance of politicians gaining some measure of influence over monetary policy decisions could have disastrous consequences. Political independence is not simply a luxury for our central bank. It is a core principle of good economic policy that yields real benefits for the American people. A number of empirical studies have shown that countries with independent central banks tend to have steadier economic growth and low and stable rates of inflation. This is not surprising. Just as politicians involved in fiscal policy have a bias toward greater spending, monetary policy influenced by politics would have a bias toward looser credit over the short term and therefore higher rates of inflation over the longer term. Financial markets would immediately recognize this and push up our borrowing rates and further weaken our currency. As we move forward in this process of financial regulatory reform, Congress should strive for robust oversight of the Fed, but it must guard against political interference. In the end, an independent Federal Reserve with a clear and focused single mandate is the best way to achieve the desirable ends of sustainable economic growth, job creation, and low inflation.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. The first modification was made by the conference report on the FY 2010 budget resolution adopted on April 29, 2009. Am I correct that the budget resolution provided authority to reduce CBO's deficit estimate of this legislation by up to $38 billion?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, clause 10 of rule XXI, what is known as the pay-as-you-go or PAYGO rule, provides a point of order against direct spending or revenue legislation that would increase the deficit, and the bill before us today increases the deficit by $209.6 billion according to the Congressional Budget Office. While there is no authority to reduce the estimated cost of legislation in the rules adopted by the House at the beginning of the 111th Congress, am I correct that the House has effectively modified the application of this rule on two separate occasions with respect to its application to Medicare legislation?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. My understanding is that on July 22, in passage of that PAYGO bill, that the budget resolution was modified to allow the CBO estimate of the cost of the legislation to go up to $284 billion which could not be counted. Am I correct that even though the Congressional Budget Office says that this bill raises the deficit by $209.6 billion, the rule in place right now gives the chairman of the Budget Committee the ability to simply say that this costs nothing, that the score is zero. Am I correct in saying that?