Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the vice ranking member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I will consume my 1\1/2\ minutes. Madam Speaker, let me just address what has been said here. This President inherited a terrible fiscal crisis. Well, you know what this President inherited? It inherited a Democratic majority that ran Congress for the last 2 years that gave us all of this spending and these higher deficits. But here is the question; yes, there is a bad fiscal situation on our hands in this country. Yes, the President inherited a difficult situation. The question is, is he making it better or is he making it worse? All of these complaints about the higher deficit that has been inherited, about this spending that has occurred over the last 8 years, and what is the response? More of it. More spending, more deficits, more debt. One of the reasons why the majority decided not to follow the President's lead with a 10-year budget and go with a 5-year budget is because the day after the 5-year budget, the deficit goes right back on up. One of the reasons why they put all these gimmicks in this bill was to try and make that deficit look as if it were smaller than it actually is. You take the gimmicks away, it is another $1.127 trillion in deficit spending. The deficit never gets to 3 percent of GDP, which all economists from the right and left think is unsustainable. This budget puts us on an unsustainable course. Madam Speaker, we are going to be back here again talking about what to do to fix the budget because this budget will need fixing, and that's going to happen.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this is a big moment. This is a moment where Congress is now about to decide the passage of the final conference report of this year's budget. It's the budget of our new President with this new Democratic majority. It's a budget that encapsulates their values, the issues that the majority party ran on, the issues that the majority party did say in their campaigns that they were going to pass. I did 25 listening sessions in the First Congressional District over the Easter recess, and a lot of constituents were concerned and complained about all of this new government and about all of this spending as if it's something they didn't see coming, to which I answered to most of my constituents: You know what? The President did run on these ideas. The Democrats who took the majority did run on these ideas. These are the things they said that they would do, and now this budget shows that they're doing it. So honesty and candor are being had with this budget. The description of what it does, however, I would say, is not being candidly handled. It is not being done honestly. If you take a look at an honest accounting of this budget that is now before the floor, there is an additional $1.172 trillion in deficit spending that's occurring here that had been masked away from it. You've seen the kinds of quotes from some who would describe the enormous vision of this budget as one that will bring a new day in America, where we will look more like a European kind of an economy, like more of a European type of social welfare state. I know a lot of people don't like that description, and in some ways, that description that this converts the American Government into a European welfare state government is not a fair description. The reason that that's not a fair description is it's not fair to Europe. Under the Maastricht treaty, under which the Europeans allow entrance, this budget would be in violation of it. If you take an honest accounting of this budget, then the deficit never falls below 5 percent of the GDP. We couldn't be allowed into the European Union if this budget passes, which we know the majority has the votes, and it will pass. This budget doubles the national debt held by the public in about 5\1/2\ years, and it triples it in about 10\1/2\ years. This budget recreates a whole new system, a whole new precedence. This new precedence changes the whole notion of budgets, the whole concept of what we refer to as the 1974 Budget Act. That budget act was an idea that we've got to get spending under control, that we've got to get our fiscal house in order, that we've got to get the deficit down. We've got to work on our borrowing. We need to bring fiscal discipline and some limits and some control to the process of taxing and spending in Congress. This doesn't do that. This takes a whole new precedence, and it uses the budget. It perverts the tools within the budget, not to lower the level of spending, not to lower the level of taxing, not to work on reducing the national debt. It uses the budget to increase these things--to engage in an absolute gusher of new spending, of more taxing and of more borrowing. In fact, the order occurs like this: a huge gusher of new spending, chased by ever-higher taxes which never actually catch up with that spending, which results in a record level of new borrowing. More debt will accumulate under this coming Presidency than under all prior Presidencies combined. That's the budget that we have here before us today. The chairman talked about the Congressional Budget Office saying taxes are being cut in this budget. That's really an interesting statement. You have to go through so much mental gymnastics to actually rationalize that statement. What this budget does, to be fair, is it takes some current tax rates and keeps them current--the Child Tax Credit, the Marriage Penalty Relief, some of the lower income tax brackets. So it doesn't cut those taxes. It just keeps them where they are. Under this budget, the alternative minimum tax kicks in in full force in 3 years, hitting at that time about 30 million families with an average of $2,000 of more taxes. It raises the tax rates on income that most small businesses pay, so they'll pay a tax rate higher than that of the largest corporations. It raises the tax rates on the very investments, capital gains and dividends that make up our pension funds, our 401(k) plans, our college savings plans that are now down by 40 percent. So it has not only the largest tax increase in American history and not only the largest spending increase in American history but the largest debt increase ever. That's not budgeting. That's irresponsibility. So we, obviously, have a difference of opinion with this budget. While we criticize this, we brought to the floor our own budget to say how we would do things differently, and we've got to get our taxes low to grow this economy. We've got to control spending so that we can have government live within its means so that we can get our debt paid off. At the end of the day, the question is whether or not we're going to do good in this generation by the next generation, whether or not we're going to take on the fiscal challenges that are confronting this country and this generation today so that future generations of Americans can continue to enjoy the high standards of living that we have enjoyed, whether Americans can still test the boundaries of prosperity and society or whether we're going to go down that sliding scale, that slippery slope of giving the next generation an inferior standard of living. It is a quantifiable, irrefutable fact that this budget puts us on that glide path to giving the next generation an inferior standard of living, an ocean of debt, a sea of higher taxes and spending as far as the eye can see. This budget should not pass. Unfortunately, this budget will pass. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis) from the Budget Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I would yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a loving father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, a devoted husband, and a personal friend and mentor. George K. Steil, Sr. was a pillar of integrity and leadership in the Janesville community and the state of Wisconsin. George passed away less than a month ago at his home in Janesville, but not before leaving an indelible mark on the countless lives he touched--myself included. He will be sorely missed, but will never, ever, be forgotten. George was born in Western Wisconsin in 1924, and served his nation with honor in World War II as a sergeant in the U.S. Army Amphibious Forces in both New Guinea and the Philippines. Shortly after his return from service, George married the beautiful Mavis Andrews in 1947 in Darlington, Wisconsin. George is an institution at the University of Wisconsin--having received a Doctor of Law Degree from the University of Wisconsin in 1950, been named a lecturer at UW in 1974, and having received the law school's highest honor--the Alumni Distinguished Service Award in 1991. He was appointed by Governor Tommy Thompson to the UW Board of Regents, serving as the Board's President from 1992-1994, as well as Chairperson of the UW Medical Foundation and member of the UW Hospital Authority. He had among the most illustrious legal careers of any in the State of Wisconsin, serving on numerous statewide--and international-- committees and associations. George was elected president of the State Bar in 1976, and later honored by the Wisconsin Bar Foundation as the 9th recipient of the Charles L. Goldberg Distinguished Service Award for his outstanding public service as a citizen, an attorney, and a humanitarian. His leadership in the community was also unparalleled. He has served as President and Senior Partner of Brennan, Steil, and Basting in Janesville, having been with the firm from 1960 until his death. George had been President of Janesville's Chamber of Commerce; Chairman of the Board of Directors of Bank One in Janesville; and took countless other leading roles in both the public and private sector. He had also been recognized for his commitment to the Catholic Church and the Diocese of Madison. George's commitment to faith was evident in all he did, as his service to God was manifest in his tireless service to others. His long list of achievements and honors fails to do justice in describing the type of man George Steil was. My father was George's law partner, and I had the privilege of getting to know the Steil family during the formative years of my life. Because I lost my father at a young age, George became a mentor of mine. He gave me the kind of fatherly guidance and encouragement that I so desperately needed as I grew up and faced life's many challenges. Unlike any other, I looked to George as a role model, and was blessed to be taken under his wing. George Steil dedicated his life to the service of others: to his fellow countrymen in the U.S. Army; to his neighbors--especially those most vulnerable--in Janesville, Rock County, and Wisconsin; to his clients, his customers, and fellow parishioners; and--most passionately--to his friends and his family. To George's four children: George, Jr. and wife Patricia; John of Janesville; Michelle and husband Patrick; and Marcelaine and husband John. Your father will forever be one of Janesville's finest. To his two great-grandchildren and ten grandchildren, including my former and future staffers Bryan and Allison Steil: your grandfather's zest for life and selfless commitment to service provides a guiding light for you to follow for years to come. To his wife Mavis: For your unconditional love and support over the years, I will forever be in debt to you and to your husband. My prayers and my eternal gratitude remain with the Steil family.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun). (Mr. BROUN of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. The whole idea of ramming all of this government, this gusher of spending and taxing and borrowing through, in as little as 105 hours of debate is not democracy. It is not the way this House is supposed to work. Unfortunately, that is precisely what the majority aims to do. And that is why we agree with the Democrats in the Senate to stop that from happening.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I would like to start off by, first of all, saying, and I comment on this a lot, I have tremendous respect for the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt. He is an admirable man who has a very difficult job. I would like to hearken back to a day where bipartisanship on the budget worked, the year before I came into Congress, and Mr. Spratt was a key part of this. That was the 1997 budget agreement. That is when reconciliation was used for its intended purpose. In that 1997 budget agreement, where you had a Democratic President and a Republican House, they came together in bipartisan fashion to reduce spending and to reduce taxes, and it is that budget agreement that paved the way for the surpluses that then occurred and followed that helped us pay down debt. The fact is, Madam Speaker, that both parties should claim credit for that job and that improvement in our fiscal situation, for bringing those surpluses, for balancing the budget and for having a substantial contribution to debt reduction. Both parties did that. Both parties should get credit for that. But here we are today, taking this process that has been used to good effect in the past, fulfilling the spirit of the process, and we are just turning it upside down. Let's review the contents of this. We very well might have, with as little as 35 hours of debate between the two Chambers and no more than 105 hours of debate because of this fast-track procedure, the greatest transformation of our Federal Government since the New Deal. Let's review the issues. Taxes: What this budget proposes to do is to impose a new national energy tax on everybody who consumes energy: a tax on manufacturing, a tax on coal-burning States like my own, a tax that is bad for our economy. Higher taxes on small businesses. Higher taxes on investments. Higher taxes in a recession. We proposed an alternative in our budget. We said, no, let's not raise taxes in a recession. Let's make our businesses more competitive in the global economy so we can create jobs in this recession. That was rejected. Now there they are steamrolling these tax increases through with very little debate and very few amendments. Let's talk about cap-and-trade. The chairman gave an articulate defense for how cap-and-trade is not happening here. It is not in this budget. Well, then why on Earth is the Commerce Committee marking up cap-and-trade legislation next week? They are having hearings right now, and they are marking this bill up next week, and they are bringing it to the floor. Here is the problem with cap-and-trade. We don't think it works. Even if you think you have a carbon problem, hitting our economy with this while our very competitors in China and India won't do it will not even reduce carbon in the atmosphere. It will actually increase carbon, but from China and India. For every one ton of greenhouse gases we reduce in America, China increases theirs by three or four tons. We lose our manufacturing jobs. They get the jobs. They emit carbon in the atmosphere. There is more carbon in the atmosphere and America has fewer jobs. How is that a good idea? We proposed an alternative in our budget. We said let's drill for oil and gas in our own country, where we have a lot of it; and let's invest the proceeds of it in a clean energy trust fund so we innovate our way toward a clean energy system, so we innovate our way for nuclear, clean coal, renewables, biomass, wind, solar, all these things, fuel cells. Americans are innovators. Let's not hit ourselves with a huge energy tax that costs jobs. Let's innovate our way out of this problem through a cleaner energy economy. That is our alternative. That was rejected. Now this cap-and-trade thing could get swept through with as little as 35 hours of debate. Let's talk about health care. I just came from the Ways and Means Committee, another committee I serve on, before coming to the floor here today, where they are discussing how in the budget reconciliation they are going to have a new health care plan that has a government-run plan option. The problem with the government- run plan option is it quickly becomes a government-run plan monopoly. One of the leading health insurance actuaries in America, the Lewin Group, is telling us that as many as 120 million Americans would lose their private health insurance under this government-run plan option. This is government-run health care. It may not say it in name, it may not be what it says it is going to do tomorrow, but it is clearly what all the actuaries and the economists are telling us what it becomes. The advocates in the Ways and Means Committee are already telling us, why have private health insurance in the first place? Let's just have the government run it all. So clearly the intention is being made known, and this confiscation of 17 percent of our economy will run through Congress with as little as 35 hours of debate. This is what we are talking about. Should we have a government takeover of health care in America? Let's have a debate about that. Let's not have 35 hours of debate. Should we impose the largest energy tax in the history of this country on our manufacturers, on seniors, on the upper Midwest where we have cold winters, or should we just ram this thing through with 35 hours of debate? Should we hit our economy in the middle of a recession with the largest tax increase in history, ram it through with no amendments with as little as 35 hours of debate? Should we transform the Federal Government, the largest transformation we have seen since the New Deal, with as little as 35 hours of debate? We think no. And we agree with the Democrats in the Senate who agree with us that the answer should be no. Let's concur with the Senate Democrats. Let's pass this motion to instruct and let's give America democracy and debate.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the vice ranking member of the Budget Committee.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 1 additional minute. It means the Commerce Committee can choose to put in that reconciliation package anything within its jurisdiction, cap-and-trade, health care, whatever the case may be. The point is this, reconciliation in the past has been used to reduce government, to reduce taxes, to reduce spending, to contain the growth of entitlement programs. That's not what it's being used here today. Reconciliation is being used here today in a new and unique way to dramatically increase the size and cost of government, to dramatically increase the level of taxation, to dramatically increase the liabilities upon future generations. That's not its intent. Don't listen to me, listen to Senator Byrd, one of the Democrat leaders who helped write the law in the first place. Listen to Senator Conrad, the chairman of the Budget Committee, who is saying this is not what reconciliation was ever intended to be used for. Please, we are simply saying join us in agreeing with the Democrats in the Senate to not have reconciliation, so that we can have the people's representatives speak their mind so we can really truly have a collaborative process, have amendments, have open debate. That's why we are trying to do this.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, Republicans offered the American people a budget that would not only fund our priorities but also support economic growth and job creation, get the Federal spending and debt under control and begin the critical reforms of our largest and least sustainable entitlement programs. And the Republicans budget did this all without the job-killing tax hikes that are required by the budget that we are here discussing today. The budget we are here to discuss today, the Obama Democratic budget, exploits the current financial crisis to rush through a sweeping expansion of the Federal Government. This motion to instruct aims at ensuring this budget resolution doesn't trigger a fast-track process, otherwise known as budget reconciliation, to jam through a government takeover of health care and education or a cap-and-trade tax that will hurt families, kill jobs, and put America at a severe competitive disadvantage with China and other countries. As a background, the House-passed resolution includes reconciliation instructions for three committees, two of which, Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means, share jurisdiction over health care and cap-and- trade. These reconciliation instructions trigger fast-track procedures limiting debate and amendments on a subsequent reconciliation bill. In other words, it's a way for Congress to sweep this legislation through with very little debate, no amendments, get it into law without the public seeing what is happening. In the House, reconciliation is much less important because the House has what we call the Rules Committee. It is critical in the Senate, however, because there legislation can be jammed through with little debate or no amendments. The Senate does not want reconciliation. The Senate-passed budget resolution did not include reconciliation instructions. In fact, it included a number of protections against using reconciliation. This motion to instruct instructs the House conferees to recede to the Senate on four items. Number one, drop reconciliation instructions from the resolution; number two, block legislation that eliminates Americans' ability to keep their health care plans or choose their own doctor; number three, adopt a Senate provision that keeps reconciliation from being used for cap-and-trade legislation; and, number four, adopt a Senate provision that would prevent taxes from being raised to even higher levels than those that are assumed in this budget resolution. To reiterate, the Senate does not want reconciliation. This is what Senate Budget Committee chairman Senator Conrad said yesterday about reconciliation: ``Once you have unleashed reconciliation, you can't get it back in the barn. And it could be used for lots of different things that are completely unintended at this moment. People need to think about that very carefully.'' Chairman Conrad is not alone. Twenty-eight Senators wrote Chairman Conrad urging him not to use reconciliation for cap-and-trade legislation because reconciliation fast-track procedures ``would be inconsistent with the administration's stated goals of bipartisanship, cooperation, and openness.'' Senator Byrd, the best author we have among us of the budget process, the author of the reconciliation process said this: ``Reconciliation is not designed to create a new climate and energy regime and certainly not to restructure our entire health care system. Woodrow Wilson once said that the informing function is the most important function of Congress. How do we inform? We publicly debate and amend legislation. We receive feedback which allows us to change and improve proposals. Matters that affect the lives and the livelihoods of our people must not be rushed through the Senate using a procedural fast track that the people never get a chance to comment upon or fully understand.'' But even more important, Madam Speaker, Americans are concerned about all of the spending that's going on here in Washington. And we should not underestimate how well the people understand. Like just about everybody else, last week I held 25 listening sessions throughout the First Congressional District in Wisconsin. My district falls right in the middle among the political spectrum so it's a good microcosm of the attitudes across the country. They are worried about this new gusher of spending. They are worried about the government taking over health care. They are worried about the increased cost of energy, the effect that it's going to have on our manufacturing jobs. And, in fact, at one of my town hall meetings, a woman in her mid-sixties came up to me and said, Is Congress going to use reconciliation to push through all of this government and health care reform legislation? I was floored by that. I don't think I have ever heard anybody outside the Beltway talk to me about reconciliation. The American people are watching this process. The American people know what is happening. The American people want a say in this. Why are we here? We are here to deliberate. We are the people's representatives. Should we take this largest proposal to increase the size and reach and scope of our government, the largest--in the words of the administration--since the New Deal and just sweep it through with almost no debates, with no amendments, stifling the voices of the people's representatives or not? At the end of the day, we could confiscate about 25 percent of our economy, energy and health care together, with less than a hundred hours of debate and no amendments. It's baffling, it's mind-boggling that this could actually happen. This is not America, this is not the deliberative process, and this is not a process the Senate itself even wants. So the question is if we're going to have debate about nationalizing the health care system in America, if we're going to have a debate about having a brand-new energy tax, if we're going to have a debate about tax increases and spending increases doubling and tripling our national debt, let's have that debate. Let's not just sweep the thing through. Unfortunately, the philosophy that is at play here, Madam Speaker, is this--and it's a philosophy that we need to talk about. It's a philosophy that we need to debate. The philosophy behind this budget, with all of its class warfare, with all of its class accusation is basically they are telling the American people in the budget that your station in life is static and we're going to have to grow government to help you cope with it. We reject that. That is not what America is about. That is not the ideal of this country. People are not stuck with their current station in life. The goal of this country, the goal of our government is to help people become upwardly mobile; it is to give the people the tools that they need so they can seize the opportunity to make a better life for themselves. We need to protect people's rights to achieve their dreams, to get the opportunities to make the most of their lives and to seek happiness as they define it for themselves so long as it doesn't infringe on another person's right to do the same. That is the philosophy that has taken this country so far, that has made it the most prosperous Nation in the world, the envy of the world, and that is the philosophy that is being debated right here with this budget as to whether it should continue or not. I think we should have more than just about 100 hours of debate on whether or not we trash this philosophy that brought our country this far. We should have amendments as to whether or not we're going to do all of this government. Do we want Europe, or do we want America? It should be more than a hundred hours of debates. We might want to consider an amendment or two to this philosophy. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself the rest of the time. Mr. Speaker, I'll just simply close this portion of our debate by saying this: Let's all admit that both parties have made mistakes in the past. That happens. The question is: Are we going to make things worse or are we going to make things better? It is so clear, so obvious to just about any observer out there that piling on a new mountain of debt, a new gusher of spending and the largest tax increase in American history is not going to make things better; it's going to make things worse. Now, the one thing that the American people do get out of this is they get a choice. We disagree with this budget, and so rather than just simply criticizing, we proposed an alternative, an alternative that keeps taxes down and helps small businesses, an alternative that controls and cuts spending, an alternative that gets our debt under control and that puts us on a path to pay our debt off. It is a stark difference than this budget, which is making its way through Congress, being steamrolled through to give us the largest expansion in government we've seen in the history of this country, the third and final great wave, the building on the New Deal and the Great Society, which will give us a larger Federal Government unlike any we have seen in the history of this country in the past. It is a budget that doubles the national debt in 5\1/2\ years and triples it in 10\1/2\ years. It is a budget that gives us a huge tax increase in the middle of a recession and that makes everybody pay more for energy, and it's a budget that basically is borne upon the philosophy that the government must grow for society to grow. We reject that idea. That's why we're not supporting this budget.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I have one additional speaker.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. All right. I will yield the remainder of our time, 3\1/2\ minutes, I believe----