Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, may I just ask unanimous consent for the purpose of thanking some staff?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. No. The deficit was higher in 2003 and it went down in 2006 to $162 billion because of higher economic growth. And that is what we were trying to advocate for, getting the deficit down, keeping taxes low, getting people into work. And you know what--we should have done a better job on spending, and on that you are right.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. The deficit went down after that comment, down to $162 billion, which was the last year when we had control. $162 billion. So it actually went down because jobs went up.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Will my friend yield for a moment on that?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. He was talking about the text of the resolution.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. The next speaker was quoted a couple years ago as saying about our Republican budget when we had a deficit of $248 billion, ``This constitutes nothing less than fiscal child abuse, because they will morally force our children and grandchildren to pay our bills.'' I couldn't have said it better myself, Madam Chair. That is exactly what is happening. But the budget deficit is not $248 billion, it is $1.8 trillion. We don't even get close to $248 billion under these budgets. Yes, we have a tough fiscal situation. We have inherited it. I guess you could say so. The question is, what are we doing about it? Are we make it better, or are we making it worse? The President's budget, which is here on the floor, makes it so much worse. It doubles the debt in 5\1/2\ years and triples it in 10. Massive tax increases in the middle of a recession, on everyone, and chases ever-higher spending with ever-higher taxes forever. We have different ideas. We have differences. Nowhere else is it more clear about the differences between our two parties than it is today. The gentleman has spent the last 20 minutes criticizing us for cutting spending. Guilty as charged. Yes, we need to cut spending. Wow. I said it. Holy cow. In Washington. A novel idea. You know what? We spend too much money in this government. We have got to prioritize spending. The American people, guess what, this is their money. We don't just make it up. Well, actually, they are printing a lot of it down at the Federal Reserve now, more than they should. This comes from the American people. It is their money. If you keep taking it away from them, do you know what happens at the end of the day, Madam Chair? They don't have as much freedom. They don't have the ability to put groceries on the table. They don't have the ability to pay their mortgage, which might be underwater. The engine of the economy of this country is not its government, it is its people, and we believe that we need to get serious about our fiscal situation. Don't raise taxes in a recession. Don't borrow and spend your way to prosperity. It never worked in any other country. Why would it work here? Let's get our fiscal house in order. Let's get our deficit down. Let's get our borrowing down. Let's get our taxes down. Let's get more jobs and more freedom in this economy. That is exactly what our budget does. It is responsible, it is serious, and it gives me the ability to go home on the airplane tomorrow and look my three kids in the eyes when I hug them and kiss them and tell them, ``I just made right by you because I just went to work to make your future better.'' I am going to go home with a clear conscience. I hope you can say the same.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. We have no more speakers. So if the chairman would finish his round of speakers, then that would be great with us. I understand the gentleman reserves the right to close, and I would just like to know when his last speaker is up.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, the gentleman is correct. We don't have the President's request to increase the State Department's budget by 51 percent. We are guilty as charged. With that I would like to yield 2 minutes to the minority whip, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, at this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg). (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, may I inquire about the time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 10 seconds to say, show me where Social Security is privatized. Show me where there is deregulation. There's not even the word ``deregulation'' in this bill, and all we're saying on Medicare for younger people, so we can save the program, why don't we let them have a program like the one we have in Congress. We have a good health care program. I think it's worthy of theirs. With that, Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), the chairman of the House Republican Conference. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. There's no privatization of Social Security in this bill. Can you show me where that is in this bill, please?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Would you yield for a correction?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Would the gentleman care to yield on that point?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, this has been a long day, a long couple of days. We're talking about the fiscal future of America. Here is the budget we propose. There is something that's important, that's worth saying. Obviously we don't like the majority's budget, the President's budget, and I believe it's incumbent upon us to offer an alternative. So that's what we're doing here today. I want to walk you through our alternative. A couple of things off the bat. It has lower deficits, lower spending, lower taxes, lower debt, and a lot more jobs. Specifically on spending, our budget spends $4.8 trillion less than the majority's budget. Deficits. Our budget has lower deficits than the Obama-Spratt budget throughout the entire period, and half of it at the end of the period. Jobs. We asked some economists to take a look at, well, which approach creates the most jobs, and they told us just in the fifth year alone you'd have more than two million more jobs under the Republican alternative than you would under the Democratic proposal, the Obama proposal. Why? Because they raise taxes on small businesses. They raise taxes on pensions, on the assets that make up our savings. They raise taxes on energy. They raise debt borrowing, which will lead to higher interest rates. But let me tell you something else. This is a long-run chart. My friends on the other side have sort of ridiculed bringing these long- run charts to the floor. Let me read from a document published by the Brookings Institution and the Heritage Foundation. Signed by experts, economists, from the Concord Coalition, the Brookings Institution, the Heritage Foundation, the New America Foundation, the Progressive Policy Institute and the Urban Institutes. Not exactly your bastion of right-wing think tanks. They say on page 6, among their top recommendations, ``Congress and the President should enact explicit long-term budgets for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid that are sustainable, that set limits on automatic spending growth that require review every 5 years.'' More importantly, they say the long-run cost of these programs should be visible in the budget at all times and considered when decisions are made. What are they saying? Let's think about the future when we're voting on these budgets. Let's think about what we're doing to the next generation. The President himself said this is the most transformative budget we've seen in a generation. We haven't seen the kinds of change that this budget proposes, the likes of which we haven't seen since the New Deal. So let's consider the ramifications of that. Let's think about what we're doing and the fiscal consequences of it. And so here's what the picture tells you. Spending. This budget puts us on a path of ever-higher spending to the point where my three children, who are 4, 5 and 7 years old, will see a government that is double the size of the one we have today, double the size of one we've ever had in this country. The Republican budget gets us back on track to keep the size of our government where it has always been so we can maximize freedom. What about debt? This is the tidal wave of red ink that all of the experts are telling us about. The General Accountability Office, the Congressional Budget Office, left and right economists from all around. The point is we shouldn't be looking down the road 5 years, 10 years. You know what? I have a mom. She is 75 years old. I have got my kids. I just told you how old they were. I'm in the X generation. What we do here affects all of those people. And so when we pass these bills, they have consequences for everybody in America. And when you see that this budget--which, by the way, is being generous to the Obama-Spratt mark-- this budget underestimates the fiscal damage their budget will do. It is an island of red ink. It is a future of a banana republic of borrowing. And we say let's not do that. And you know what? If you start now, these reforms are compassionate. The reforms we're seeing over the next 10 years are, instead of growing mandatory spending at 5.3 percent, let's grow it at 3.9 percent. It's more than double the rate of inflation right now. We're saying for discretionary spending we gave all of these government agencies giant increases in just the last couple of years. They are fat. Let's put them on a diet for a little while. Let's freeze spending, prioritize spending and then have modest increases after that so we can save our country, save our fiscal future. That's what we're saying. Let's not get in this vicious spiral, as the Obama budget does, of chasing ever-higher spending with ever-higher taxes that never quite catch that spending and gives us ever-higher debt. It's wrong. It's unconscionable. It's going to hurt our economy. It's going to bankrupt our country. It's going to give our children a lower standard of living. At the end of the day, it comes down to this. I asked the Congressional Budget Office, well, what about the standard of living of future Americans? What will the standard of living look like on the current pathway we are on in America? Not the Obama budget but just the current pathway before you would pass this big government budget. And they said this: Inferior standards of living. That's the red line. We are basically consigning the next generation quantifiably, irrefutably to a lower standard of living. That severs the tie between our generations. That breaks the bond in this country, the legacy, that says each generation takes on its responsibilities, fixes its problems so that the next generation is better off. You know, my dad told me a number of things when I was a young guy, and he passed away when I was a kid. But I remember a couple of things he always told me. Number one, don't just be part of the problem, be part of the solution. So we're offering a solution. Number two, the great thing about this country is each generation makes it better off for the next, and you better do that when you're my age. Our budget, according to the Congressional Budget Office, says that the standard of living of Americans in the future currently and consistently goes upwards. We are putting, in this budget, people on the path for prosperity so that we can leave the next generation better off. And we are offering an economic plan for right now to get jobs back in this economy. We're offering an economic plan that shows we're going to create more jobs. The answers all don't flow out of Washington. The answers come from individual Americans. That's the power of this country. That's the idea of this country. The nucleus of our country, of our society, of our economy, the genius of it are the American people themselves, not Washington bureaucrats, not the idea that we have to take more money and more power away from the people and spend it on their behalf and exercise it on their behalf. Unfortunately, that is the arrogant, paternalistic notion that is being brought to the floor here by the budget that the American people are being asked to swallow. I think it's wrong. I think it's dead wrong, and we're following the advice of all the fiscal experts from the left and from the right who are saying think about the consequences, think about the future, think about what your actions are doing. That's what we are doing, and that is why I argue for our budget, a sensible budget, a commonsense budget, a budget that says to senior citizens, we can protect your benefits right now if we act to save them for the future. Here's the problem. These programs themselves grow themselves right into extinction. If we don't reform these programs, we can't protect those who are in and near retirement from those cuts. If you act now, we can protect people who are in and near retirement. If we don't act now, we can't. That's what's wrong about the politics of demagoguery of taking on these challenges, and that is why we need to be grownups and adults and tackle these fiscal challenges before they tackle us. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, at this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I will wait to let them get caught up.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I take it the gentleman is waiting for the Speaker to come. Madam Chair, there is a virtual conga line forming around the Capitol right now to come and get money. We are spending so much money these days. We have got to get this spending under control. It is out of control. And because the spending is out of control, the debt is going out of control. But I want to talk about something else in the closing minutes of the general debate here, and that is about the biggest problem in America today: Jobs. We don't have enough of them. In my hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, they closed down the General Motors plant. It is about three-quarters of a mile from my house. Two of my neighbors had their jobs there. Gone. High unemployment everywhere. So the real question is, what are we doing to get jobs back in this economy, to get out of this deep recession, this the longest recession since 1945? I would say that it is important to focus on one fact. Small businesses are the engine of economic growth in this economy. Seventy percent of our jobs come from small businesses. That is who got us our prosperity, that is who is going to get us our prosperity back. And so what does this budget do for small businesses? Do you know what it says to small businesses? We are going to raise your taxes. You have got to remember, Madam Chair, that the people who pay those rates that are being increased, those tax rates that are being increased in this budget are small businesses. They file their income taxes as individuals. So we hear speaker after speaker after speaker saying, we are not doing these irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent, the rich. Look, Madam Chair, preying on people's emotions of fear and envy may be a good political slogan, but it doesn't create jobs. Tapping into the legitimate anger and anxiety in America today is not leadership. Because what this does with these tax increases on small businesses is it demonizes those successful small businesses that are getting us our jobs, and it demoralizes those small business men and women in America who are trying to become successful. It tells them, you know what? If you work hard, if you achieve, if you take a risk, if you innovate, if you become an entrepreneur in this country, we are going to tax you, we are going to demonize you. You are one of the evil people. That is not America. That is not what this country is all about. We believe we ought to help people become successful. We want to reward work. We want that entrepreneurial, innovative spirit in America to come alive again. The problem with this budget at the end of the day is it shuts off the wealth machine, the job creation machine of America. It makes it harder for those small business men and women to survive. The big reason why I voted against that stimulus package is because only 1 percent of it was actually dedicated toward encouraging small businesses to keep and create jobs. The rest of it was spending or tax rebates. There is a big difference here, a huge difference. The American people finally have a very clear choice. Do you want bloated government? Do you want spending where every government agency gets double and triple-digit increases in their budget? Do you want record deficits, record tax increases and record debt increases? Or do you want to get this stuff under control? Do you want to get spending under control? Do you want to get borrowing under control? Do you want to get our deficits under control? Do you want to get taxes low so we can create more jobs? At the end of the day, it is all about freedom. The budget they are bringing to the floor gives us less of it. The budget we are going to bring gives us more of it. That is what America is all about. America is the land of opportunity. We help people when they are down on their luck. We help people who cannot help themselves. But we create an entrepreneur activity. We create a country that rewards freedom, risk taking, advancement and success. Those are good things. This budget squelches that. This budget extinguishes those great aspects of America, the American ideal we have come to know and love. I say we keep it and reject this budget.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I take it the chairman has no other speakers?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Does the gentleman from South Carolina have any other speakers?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer). (Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Nunes.

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