Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. 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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to place in the Record a statement commending the people at CBO for their long hours and hard work. Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that this is probably the most consequential vote each of us will take in our service here, whether you've been here for 40 years or for 1 year. When you expose this bill's budget gimmicks, does it increase the debt and deficit? Yes. Will it take coverage away from seniors, raise premiums for families, and decrease health care innovation? Yes. Will it raise taxes on small businesses and workers and cost us nearly 5.5 million jobs when our unemployment rate is 10.2 percent? Yes. Does this bill mean the government will take over running our health care system? Yes. But what is worse is this bill replaces the American idea with a European-style social welfare state. This bill, more than any other decision we are going to make in this body, will do more to put millions of Americans as dependents of a state rather than being dependent upon themselves. This is not about health care policy. If it were, we could pass a bipartisan bill to fix what's broken in health care without breaking what's working in health care. This is about ideology. My friends, the choice is not whether you're going to stick with your party leaders. The choice here is what side of history do you want to be on? Will you be on the side of history where you stick with the people and the principles that built this exceptional Nation? That is the choice we are going to make with this bill, and I encourage you to think it through. It is unusual for the House to be in session working on a Saturday. That has not been the case for the Congressional Budget Office's staff that has been working on health care legislation. For the past several months, CBO has worked non-stop to analyze health care legislation. This legislation is enormously complex and far-reaching and CBO is doing their best to fulfill their mission to provide objective non- partisan analysis to the Congress. That analysis is critically important to us and I want to acknowledge the hard work of Director Doug Elmendorf and the following CBO staff in that endeavor: Alexandra Minicozzi, Allison Percy, Andrea Noda, Anna Cook, April Grady, Athiphat Muthitacharoen, Ben Page, Bruce Vavrichek, Assistant Director for Health and Human Resources. Carla Tighe Murray, Chapin White, Christi Hawley Anthony, Colin Baker, Daniel Kao, David Auerbach, David Austin, David Weiner, Doug Elmendorf, Director. Elizabeth Bass, Ellen Werble, Heidi Golding, Holly Harvey, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis, Jamease Kowalczyk, James Baumgardner, Deputy Assistant Director for Health, Janet Holtzblatt, Jean Hearne. Jodi Capps, Joyce Manchester, Unit Chief, Long Term Modeling Group, Julia Christensen, Julie Lee, Julie Somers, Julie Topoleski, Kate Massey, Unit Chief, Low-Income Health Programs and Prescription Drugs Cost Estimates. Keisuke Nakagawa, Kirstin Nelson, Kurt Seibert, Lara Robillard, Leo Lex, Unit Chief, State and Local Government Cost Estimates, Lisa Ramirez-Branum, Lori Housman, Lyle Nelson, Matt Schmit, Matthew Goldberg, Assistant Director for National Security. Mike Carpenter, Mindy Cohen, Noah Meyerson, Noelia Duchovny, Patrick Bernhardt, Paul Burnham, Paul Jacobs, Pete Fontaine, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. Phil Ellis, Unit Chief, Health Policy Analysis, Rebecca Yip, Robert Stewart, Sarah Jennings, Sean Dunbar, Sheila Campbell, Stephanie Cameron, Stuart Hagen, Sunita D'Monte, Susan Labovich, Tom Bradley, Unit Chief, Health Systems and Medicare Cost Estimates.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, this is perhaps the worst bill I have seen come to the floor in my 11 years of serving in Congress, and what would make this bill worse is if we break with the long-standing law of preventing abortions from being funded with taxpayer dollars. For those of us who support the protection of and the sanctity of life, the only vote, the right vote, the vote to keep a clean conscience is a ``yes'' vote for the Stupak amendment.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, Wisconsinites might want to know that just recently our Blue Cross Blue Shield program announced that people in their twenties under this health care bill will see a 199 percent increase in their health insurance premiums. People in their forties will see a 122 percent increase in their health insurance premiums. People in their fifties will see a dramatic double-digit increase in their health insurance premiums. Mr. Speaker, 214,000 Wisconsinites might want to know that their Medicare Advantage plan that they enjoy will be either dramatically more expensive or will go away completely. The American taxpayer might want to know that government estimators are telling us that this bill will cost $1 trillion to $2 trillion in a new health care entitlement, which will surely add more deficit and debt to future generations. The shame of all of this, Mr. Speaker, is that we could fix what is broken in health care without breaking what is working in health care. Republicans have offered 40 different pieces of legislation in an attempt to get bipartisan compromise, to make sure that the uninsured get insured, that people with preexisting conditions get health care, and we do this without breaking the bank, without raising taxes and without creating new debt and deficit and entitlements.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Joyce Yamat Meyer, our Washington office Chief of Staff and now Acting Chief of Staff over all office operations. Joyce is a native of Wisconsin. Since 1995 we have worked together in several different offices. I myself was a Congressional staffer when I met Joyce. I quickly recognized her great abilities. When the member she worked for retired from the House of Representatives, I persuaded my employer, Senator Brownback, to bring her on board. After my election in 1998 I invited Joyce to become my Legislative Director. Since that time, her skills and knowledge have grown with her responsibilities. I have also been pleased to watch her become a wonderful wife, mom, and leader. Joyce is one of my partners in serving the people of Wisconsin's First Congressional District. Her home town is Franklin, Wisconsin. Following state redistricting in 2002, she was thrilled to find that her home was now in the First District. Ever since, serving her home town neighbors has been a point of pride for Joyce. I have worked with Joyce longer than anyone in my office. I am pleased to recognize Joyce Yamat Meyer for more than ten years of excellent work with me in serving the people of the First District.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Miss Teresa Mora. Teresa is the Field Representative in my district office and has worked with me for more than ten years. Teresa's personal experience is an embodiment of the American Dream. She was born in Mexico to a loving and close family. They recognized the opportunities for prosperity and freedom which the United States held out to them, and made the difficult decision to come to this country in pursuit of a better life for themselves and their children. Teresa is conscientious and loyal. Her unique experience has given her a great love for her adopted country combined with passion to help others of Hispanic background who make up a considerable part of Wisconsin's First Congressional District. Teresa's sincerity and heart of gold help her to win the confidence of immigrants who need assistance in working with the federal government. With bilingual skills, she works comfortably within the immigrant community to build trust and candor to help solve documentation and other government-related problems. In her role as a representative working in a conservative Republican Congressional office, Teresa has at times encountered hostility based on misunderstanding. Teresa is never partisan, but her positive experience as an American citizen empowers her with a sincere message of hope and success in this country that never fails to open minds and hearts. I am proud to acknowledge the excellent service and positive efforts Teresa Mora has made over ten years to make life better for the families of Wisconsin's First Congressional District.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Mrs. Susan Ann (Liston) Skerbish, Wisconsin's First Congressional District Constituent Services Representative. I have been fortunate to work with staff whose attitude and outlook are positive. But Susie's sweet nature stands out. She joined my office fresh out of college as an idealistic young woman dedicated to the cause of freedom and the desire to help make our society a better place. Susie's winsome smile has always brought sunshine to our office, uplifting morale on the busiest and most difficult days. By now she has assisted hundreds of religious and nonprofit organizations to secure the grants to help fulfill their social mission, as well as local governments to receive the share of federal resources to which they are entitled. Her contribution to the well- being of Wisconsinites has been tremendous. In the time since she came to my office, Susie became a loving wife and has recently become a new mom. With her sweet nature and great attitude, all of us in the First District offices feel like part of her family. I am pleased to recognize Susie's 10 years of service to Wisconsinites in the First District.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Miss Danyell Tremmel, our District Director, for more than 10 years of work in the First Congressional District of Wisconsin office serving my constituents. Danyell has actually been working for the people of the District even longer than I have. When Mark Neumann represented the District in the House of Representatives, she was his only caseworker. Thus she was already a seasoned ``veteran'' when she agreed to continue on my own staff as I succeeded Congressman Neumann in 1999. Since then she has become something of a ``big sister'' to newer staff Anyone who has shared the day to day experience of casework in a Congressional office knows the strains and frustrations, in addressing legitimately upset constituents on the one hand and the bureaucratic slip-ups that have adversely impacted their lives on the other. Over the years, Danyell learned how to negotiate her way through the red tape to resolve these issues. She is very intelligent and patient. Her serenity under stress is invaluable and has inspired her coworkers. Danyell directs my district office operations whenever the Chief of Staff is unavailable, and will be doing so for an extended time while he serves his country on military duty in Iraq. Danyell has kept her enthusiasm, high standards, and work ethic as she has worked with me for the people of the First District. I am pleased to recognize her for more than 10 years of selfless dedication.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Chad Allen Herbert, who is the Constituent Services Representative for military issues in my district office. Chad is the ``big brother'' of our district office staff. He joined my staff ten years ago as an Army reservist with special concern for the problems and challenges of military personnel and their families. Many of these problems involve the byzantine structure of bureaucracies at the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. Chad made it his business to learn and understand how to navigate the maze of these military agencies. As a result, he has done more over the years to help men and women of the First Congressional District who serve in the armed services than anyone I know of. Among the most sobering duties of my office is speaking words of comfort to families who have just lost a loved one in military service. Chad has often followed up my initial conversations or substituted for me during the worst moments in the lives of military families. His poise, tact, and professionalism have never failed to be appreciated as he has honored the fallen and their families. Indeed Chad has a passion for making sure our veterans are honored for their extraordinary service to our country. He takes special pride in getting our vets the recognition they deserve, for example, by helping World War Two and Vietnam veterans acquire the medals they were awarded but never received. Chad was a recent college grad when he began in my office ten years ago, and has since married and is raising a fine family. I am privileged to recognize his ten years of service in my office to the military families of Wisconsin's First District.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the chairman. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. Let me be clear: I support education. It's an indispensable component of America's prosperity. I don't find fault with Pell Grants or student loans. What I find fault with is the way that the math doesn't add up in this bill. This bill includes a sleight of hand in so many ways that it either raises the deficit by $5.7 billion or by as much as $39 billion. It creates 10 new entitlement programs that will dramatically increase spending over the next 10 years, and it adds to our already alarming levels of borrowing. Let me try and explain what's going on with respect to how the budget gimmicks are employed here. First off, the bill claims to reduce mandatory spending by $7.8 billion and dedicates that savings to deficit reduction; but through this budget gimmick, the bill shifts $13.5 billion in necessary program administrative costs over to the discretionary category where it cannot be counted by the Congressional Budget Office. With this gimmick removed, the bill actually increases the deficit by $5.7 billion. That's the smallest budget gimmick in this bill. The second largest budget gimmick in this bill is the way that it is scored, not using the kind of scoring that we use for such things like when we scored Fannie and Freddie or the TARP, where we used risk- adjustment scoring under the credit reform rules. If you actually score it under the accurate rules that the CBO says it ought to be scored under, this bill would raise the deficit by $32 billion. Beyond that, these 10 new entitlement programs that are being created have artificial sunset dates in the law. The most permanent thing in Washington is a temporary government program; and if you repeal these artificial sunset dates, that's $39 billion added to the deficit, which is according to the Congressional Budget Office. This bill does not save money. This bill raises the deficit. This bill crowds out the private sector; it deprives students of choices; it uses enormous budget gimmicks, and it exploits the budget reconciliation system to try and say that it's saving money and reducing the deficit when, in actuality, using honest budgeting and honest accounting, it does nothing like that.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I, along with Congressman Artur Davis and Congressman Joseph Crowley, re-introduce today the Generating Retirement Ownership Through Long-Term Holding (``GROWTH'') Act of 2009. At a time when our economy is struggling to recover, this bipartisan bill would provide a valuable tool to hardworking Americans saving for retirement and other financial goals. Mutual fund investors are overwhelmingly middle-income Americans investing for the long term. For many of these investors, mutual funds provide a low-cost, professionally managed, diversified opportunity in which they can save for their own retirement. Currently, investors who buy shares in a mutual fund and hold them for the long term find themselves taxed as they go--even though no fund shares were sold and no cash was received. This legislation allows mutual fund shareholders to keep more of their own money working for them longer by deferring capital gains taxes until they actually sell their investment. The GROWTH Act makes it easier for these individuals to meet their retirement savings goals. Most of our Nation's mutual fund shareholders report that retirement is the primary reason why they are saving. More than 29 million Americans are saving through long-term mutual funds held in taxable accounts, either to supplement their employers' retirement plans, or because they do not have access to such plans. Seventy-six percent of mutual fund investors say that their primary financial goal is to save for retirement. At the same time, almost half--about 76.2 million of 158.1 million workers--are not offered any form of pension or retirement savings at work. Meanwhile, the costs once in retirement are growing. For example, the Employee Benefit Research Institute estimates that, depending on their source of health insurance coverage and their comfort level with having a 50-percent, 75-percent, or 90-percent chance of having enough savings to cover health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket health care expenses in retirement, men retiring at age 65 in 2019 will need between $114,000-$634,000, while needed savings for women range from $164,000-$754,000. Mutual fund investors who automatically reinvest are doing the right thing. They are saving for the longer term, contributing to our national economy, and building up their own retirement nest egg. These Americans should be encouraged to save not punished for doing so through a tax on automatic reinvestments. The tax code needs to help, not hinder, saving for retirement. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort and cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker: I rise in support of H.R. 3357, a bill that would ensure the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund has the resources it needs to help those who have been hit the hard by the economic recession and are jobless. However, I am concerned about a provision in this bill that would provide another General Fund transfer to the Highway Trust Fund and increase the deficit. I support a strong highway program. It's important to our nation's economy and to my home state of Wisconsin that we have world class roads that let goods and people get where they need to go safely and efficiently. The highway fund was intended to be user financed. Last year we transferred $8 billion from the General Fund to patch last year's shortfall. Earlier this year we provided $27 billion in stimulus funds from the General Fund for highways. Now the Highway Trust Fund would get another $7 billion under this legislation to pay its bills for the rest of Fiscal Year 2009. Despite claims to the contrary, the real world impact of these transfers is an increase in the deficit, which is already over $1 trillion and is projected to reach $1.8 trillion by the end of this fiscal year under the President's budget. The Highway Trust Fund is broken and needs to be permanently fixed. I want to find a solution that supports critical highway spending but does so responsibly, without adding more debt and deficits.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I am sad that the Democratic majority is trying to rush this bill through before we've had a chance to go home to our districts to listen to our constituents, to share ideas with them, to get their views on this, one of the most important issues we will ever decide here in Congress. One of the things that is being said really puzzles me. The President is saying, for the public plan, you have to have it to keep the private sector honest, to bring more competition. If that's the case, Mr. Speaker, then why don't we have government grocery stores to keep grocers honest? Why don't we have government contractors for car mechanics to keep car mechanics honest? Why don't we have government steel companies to keep steel companies honest? Why don't we have government car companies--oh, excuse me, that's the wrong example. The point is, Mr. Speaker, the public option is not here to keep the private sector honest. The public option is here to make the private sector go away. That is the purpose of this bill, and the American people should see it. And we, in August, ought to be given the opportunity to talk to them about it.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, the Republican motion to recommit adds three germane provisions from the Fiscal Honesty and Accountability Act of 2009, which is the Blue Dog PAYGO bill introduced by Mr. Hill and 53 Democratic cosponsors. It adds this to the underlying bill. This motion to recommit does not strike or amend any provision in the underlying bill. The three provisions taken verbatim from the House Blue Dog bill and added to the underlying PAYGO bill are: Number one, discretionary caps from FY 2011 through FY 2013 at the very levels the Blue Dogs set out in their bill; number two, a requirement that CBO report the interest costs of legislation; number three, a requirement that CBO score conference reports. Let me read from the minority views of the Spending Control Act of 2004 presented by then the minority ranking member Mr. Spratt on behalf of House Democrats with respect to discretionary spending caps: ``Democrats believe that a set of discretionary spending caps arrived through bipartisan negotiation is an important part of an effective budget enforcement.'' ``If discretionary spending caps are to work effectively, they must be established as part of a bipartisan negotiation that also includes a balanced PAYGO provision encompassing both mandatory spending levels and revenues. This balanced approach worked in the 1990s, and it should serve as a model for efforts to reform the budget process today.'' Well, we agree. We agree that this bill will be far more effective if discretionary spending caps were added to it. So given that this bill was bypassed from committee, we want to offer our colleagues yet one more chance at bipartisan success here. We are saying to those who are here who call themselves Blue Dogs, we want to work with you. You hold the keys. You control the fate of not only this provision, but you will also hold the keys of next week's provision, which will create a new unfunded liability in health care. Messrs. Adler, Arcuri, Barrow, Bishop, Boswell, Bright, Carney, Childers, Cooper, Cuellar, Donnelly, Fattah, Gordon, Ms. Harman, Messrs. Holden, Marshall, McIntyre, Michaud, Mitchell, Murphy, Peterson, Ross, Ms. Sanchez, Messrs. Scott, Space, Taylor, Wilson, Altmire, Baca, Berry, Boren, Boyd, Cardoza, Chandler, Connolly, Costa, Davis, Ellsworth, Ms. Giffords, Mr. Griffith, Ms. Herseth-Sandlin, Messrs. Kratovil, Matheson, Melancon, Minnick, Moore, Nye, Pomeroy, Salazar, Schiff, Shuler, Tanner and Thompson. All we're asking you to do is to vote for the bill you cosponsored. That's all this does. Vote for what you've cosponsored. Put your votes where your cosponsors are. We can make this bill better. We can make it bipartisan. We will help you deliver the margin of victory. Let's do this together. Let's have that vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I am.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Would the gentleman like me to respond?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Working in the Budget Committee to make sure that the war was inside of the budget, not outside of the budget, as the Bush OMB was proposing. We were proposing that that funding be done within the budget, not outside the budget.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself the remainder of our time. The gentleman from South Carolina rightfully says that our substitute would involve rewriting the budget resolution. Yes. We think we should rewrite the budget resolution. What does the incumbent budget resolution the majority passed do? It doubles the national debt held by the public in 5\1/2\ years, triples it in 10\1/2\ years. It raises taxes by $1.5 trillion. It chases ever-higher spending with ever-higher taxes, and those tax increases never catch up with the spending increases, thus an unprecedented level in debt increases. So, yes, we think we should go do something else and go a different path. What are we proposing? We're proposing instead of the system in place that ignores discretionary spending, instead of putting a system in place that ignores the current unsustainable trajectory of entitlement spending, instead of putting a system in place that will inevitably lead to higher taxes, we want spending discipline. We want to cap spending. And here is what our bill accomplishes that the majority bill does not. Under our bill, the deficits go down. Under the majority's bill, the deficits go up. Under our bill, for future generations, we keep the size of our government in check so that we can give the next generation a higher standard of living so that we don't send to them an unsustainable burden of debt and taxes. Under the majority's bill they don't do that. They increase debt. They increase taxes. They increase spending. They decrease the standard of living for the next generation. Now, I find it fairly ironic, and almost comical that the gentleman from Massachusetts just came through here and filed an appropriations bill. The appropriations bill, TTHUD, increases this year, this year, by 25.1 percent. So during this debate on PAYGO, during this debate on fiscal responsibility, this fiscal facade press release debate we're having right now, they just filed a bill to increase discretionary spending on one bill for just 1 year by 25 percent. You know what? PAYGO doesn't apply to that. PAYGO has nothing to do with that. So we can bring a bill here to increase spending on these few government agencies in this bill by 25 percent, and this PAYGO has nothing to do with it. You know why, Mr. Speaker? Because 40 percent of the budget, including where this spending comes from, is exempt from PAYGO. We just don't think that's the right way to go. And I've heard all these talks about the 1990s and how successful they were, and yes, there were absolutely periods of success. You know why? Because we had spending caps. We had discretionary caps in place that the Blue Dogs themselves have been advocating, time and again, which we agree with, which we're going to be advocating later in this debate that were part of the reason for that success. Success in 1997 was because Republicans and Democrats came together and put together a budget agreement which led to those surpluses. Wouldn't it be nice to get back to those kinds of days where we come together, not bypassing committees, rushing bills to the floor, cramming things through Congress and actually came together for real fiscal discipline? Unfortunately, the PAYGO bill the majority is offering is a fig leaf. It's not true. It's not real. It doesn't work. It doesn't even affect discretionary spending. It doesn't even deal with the unsustainable pathway of our current entitlement programs which, right now, give us a $62 trillion unfunded liability. We say, let's tackle those problems. You need to have, unfortunately, artificial budget enforcement on Congress. I would love to see that Congress, under our own discipline, would be able to control spending, but you know what? We can't. Both parties can't. That's why you need artificial discipline. That's why you need spending caps. That's why you should pass the Republican substitute.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. So the chairman and the majority leader are remaining?