Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against consideration of the measure.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. One quick parliamentary inquiry for the purposes of clarification, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time. I'll begin by stating what I said in the beginning, which is, as a person who believes in having a strong and intact budget process, I want to compliment the chairman for getting us to a Budget Resolution, for doing it 2 years in a row. It's not an easy accomplishment. So on behalf of the institution, it's important that we pass these budget resolutions. The problem is we're not going to pass a good budget resolution. The reason the gentleman's budget resolution achieves a balanced budget is because it contains the largest tax increase in American history. It cuts the child tax credit in half. It repeals the relief for the marriage penalty, raises income taxes across the board, raises capital gains and dividends taxes, brings the death tax back in, and puts us on a path for the largest tax increase in American history by replacing the alternative minimum tax. So, yes, the gentleman's budget does balance because it only increases spending by $280 billion while it increases taxes by $683 billion. That's how the gentleman balances the budget. But more to the point here, today the House voted to waive PAYGO to give farm subsidies to millionaires. Tomorrow the House is going to support PAYGO. They're going to enforce PAYGO to raise taxes on small businesses. So this is what we're doing here in this Congress. Whenever it's time to keep PAYGO in place to control spending, it's out the door. It's waived. It's swept under the rug. It's baseline shopping, number cooking, gimmicking, cliffs. But whenever the time comes to raise taxes, that's when we enforce PAYGO. Mr. Speaker, PAYGO doesn't exist. PAYGO is not in place. It is not being enforced. It is a sham. The only thing that PAYGO does today is give the majority an excuse to raise taxes. It doesn't cut spending. It doesn't reduce the deficit. It just raises taxes to fuel more spending. Watch what happens tomorrow. Today millionaires get agriculture subsidies because we waived PAYGO; tomorrow, taxing small businesses to create a new entitlement program. But to the point of this motion to instruct, what we are trying to achieve with this motion to instruct is to try to make this budget a little bit better, a little bit better by talking about the issue of the day, which is people are not being able to spread their paychecks as far as they were before. They can't get as much out of their paychecks because of $4 gasoline. Why do we have $4 gasoline? Because we don't have an energy policy in this country. And what we are simply saying is one of the reasons is we have so much supply we're not getting: 16 billion barrels at ANWR; 2 trillion barrels in oil shale in Wyoming and Montana; 86 billion barrels in the Outer Continental Shelf. Let me say that one more time: 16 billion barrels in Alaska, 2 trillion barrels in shale in the Intermountain West, and 86 billion barrels in the Outer Continental Shelf. All off-limits. If we just did ANWR, according to the CRS, the Federal Government would see a surge in revenues, no new taxes, not even cutting spending, $191 billion; $191 billion, according to the CRS, from just doing ANWR. That's the smallest of all of our reserves. Think what we could do with $191 billion. We could reduce the deficit. We could create a Manhattan Project for research and development for renewable energies to put fossil fuels out of business. But, no, we're doing none of this. So this is the economic equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot, of cutting off your nose to spite your face. This is not an energy policy. This is a bad budget resolution that raises taxes on the American workers and families and businesses. The worst time we should be raising taxes is when we are possibly in an economic recession, and the last thing we ought to be doing is raising taxes on people. Furthermore, with high food prices, high gas prices, we shouldn't be raising people's taxes. That's what this budget does. So to try to make it a little bit better, let's get some of our own oil and gas from our own country instead of being so reliant on foreigners for it. We're giving the wrong people our money, people who are not our friends overseas. So pass this motion to instruct. Make this budget a little bit better, and open up production so we can actually truly do something to lower the price of oil and make us less dependent on foreign oil.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I continue to reserve my time.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, let me inquire as to how much time remains on each side.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First off, Mr. Speaker, I would like to celebrate the fact that we are here in this well talking about this motion to go to conference, and I want to compliment our chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt, the gentleman from South Carolina. And I mean this in a very sincere way. The budget process doesn't work if you don't have a budget, and I want to compliment the gentleman from South Carolina for making it 2 years in a row for actually bringing forward and getting through a budget resolution. It looked like it wasn't going to happen. We won't be supporting it, but the fact that the budget chairman is keeping the budget process intact speaks very good to this institution, good to the process, and I want to compliment the gentleman from South Carolina for doing that. Now, on to the motion to instruct. Everyone agrees, Mr. Speaker, that we need to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. But frankly, if we really want to move forward with greater energy independence, we should increase our petroleum supply by increasing our domestic production of oil. The motion accomplishes just that. The Republican motion calls on the conferees to increase the receipt levels in the final budget resolution by expanding leasing in Federal areas in the West, in the Outer Continental Shelf and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in an environmentally sound manner. Yesterday, the House voted overwhelmingly to suspend the purchase of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a means to increase oil supply and reduce gasoline prices. It's unclear whether this will have any impact on oil prices, much less gas prices. This motion would accomplish that result. It would, No. 1, increase domestic oil production and put downward pressure on oil prices and gasoline prices; No. 2, it would reduce our reliance on foreign oil; and, No. 3, it would reduce the deficit. More than a year ago, the Democratic majority pledged to bring gasoline prices down. On January 4, 2007, the day the Democratic majority took control of the House, the price of gas was an average of $2.33 a gallon. Today Americans are paying an average of $3.76 per gallon to put fuel in their cars. Just 2 days ago in Kenosha, Wisconsin it was $3.95. It's $4 in some areas. This is an increase of at least $1.43 a gallon. Republicans are seeking to tap into America's great natural resources in an environmentally sound and effective way to provide the consumers the relief at the pump that they deserve, while reducing our reliance on foreign oil. This Republican motion is a step in the right direction to enhance our energy security and put in place a long-term plan to provide relief at the pump. These are the steps we need to take to assist families, communities, small businesses, those that are suffering with soaring prices of oil and gasoline. With that, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I will yield myself 30 seconds simply to say, using the chairman's argument, then there's no money in this budget for veterans, no money in this budget for science, no money in this budget for education if you use that line of argument. There's only money for discretionary spending in here. A budget resolution is a series of numbers, and we're saying, let's adjust the numbers to accommodate the policy we're talking about here, drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Outer Continental Shelf, the Intermountain West. At this time I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the event conducted by the bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus yesterday. Mr. Speaker, last year the Democrats won the Congressional Shootout, the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus trophy, between sporting clays, trap and skeet, and the Democrats thought that there was a realignment occurring in Congress, in America. They thought they were on a good run for a long time. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to say this year that the Republicans reclaimed the trophy and won the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus Shootout this year. The realignment was very short-lived. In particular, Mr. Speaker, I would like to, on behalf of my co- chairman Mr. Kind from Wisconsin; the vice chairmen, Mr. Pearce from New Mexico and Mr. Boren from Oklahoma, I would like to give particular note to the people who really shot straight yesterday. Top gun: Congressman Hayes only dropped a few clays all day. Top Republican: Congressman John Kline, Minnesota. Top Democrat: Congressman Bennie Thompson. Top Sporting Clays: Congressman Mike Ross. Top Trap: Congressman Don Young. And Top Skeet: Mike Thompson. All together, a good bipartisan effort, but more to the point, the Republicans reclaimed the trophy and reversed the realignment.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I say this regretfully, but this bill is an absence of leadership. This bill shows that we're not leading, that America is not leading, that the new majority is not leading. Why do I say that? The new majority brought this bill to the floor and they waived PAYGO. They swept PAYGO under the rug and they're violating PAYGO in two places in this bill alone. They'll say, we're trying to conform with the Senate PAYGO rules. Well, that does so at the very expense of the House PAYGO rules. What I find interesting is, right after this bill is passed they're bringing up the new budget resolution, which if that passed before this bill passed would violate the Senate PAYGO rules. How convenient. The point is this: We're sweeping money under the rug; this bill is hiding $23 billion in extra costs, it's not even measuring the amount of payment increases and price increases that are in here. But where this is really a loss in leadership is, I don't think the American taxpayer, who is having a hard time making ends meet today, who is stretching their paycheck really far with high gas and food prices, likes the idea that we're going to give couples earning $2.5 million subsidies for growing agriculture. Why are we giving agriculture subsidies to multimillionaires? This does not reflect the values that the taxpayers sent us here to achieve. More to the point, Mr. Speaker, this will hurt the family farmers. That's what a farm bill ought to be about, helping family farmers, not corporate farmers. But by doing it this way, we're making it harder to open up markets for our family farmers so they can sell their corn, their beans, their dairy, and all their other products in foreign markets. Ninety-seven percent of the world's consumers don't live in this country, they're in other countries. We should open those markets for their products. This bill, with its huge subsidies, closes those markets, it hurts the Third World from being able to lift their life out of poverty, and it wastes taxpayer dollars. And all you have to do is look at the rule that passed that says, ``Waive PAYGO one more time. The rules don't apply. Let's hide all this extra spending.'' This, among many other reasons, is why people should vote against this bill.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. We plan on doing that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. The Rules Committee report accompanying the rule provided for consideration of the conference report contains an explanation of waivers and states: ``While there is a technical violation of clause 10 of rule XXI, the PAYGO rule, the conference report complies with the rule.'' Mr. Speaker, my inquiry is this: Is it possible to be in violation of the PAYGO rule yet comply with the rule at the same time?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Does this waiver of these points of order mean that the PAYGO rule and the Budget Act points of order are also waived and therefore, a Member may not raise a point of order against consideration of the bill on those grounds?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Further parliamentary inquiry. The rule providing for the consideration of the conference report to accompany the Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 includes a waiver of all points of order against consideration. Does that waiver include a waiver of clause 10 of rule XXI, the pay- as-you-go point of order, and in addition, to all points of order under the Congressional Budget Act? And does this mean that a Member of Congress may not raise a point of order against consideration of the bill even if it is in violation of the PAYGO rule, Budget Act points of order, or the concurrent resolution on the budget?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, according to clause 10(a) of rule XXI, in advising the Chair, the Budget Committee must use ``the most recent baseline estimates supplied by the Congressional Budget Office . . . used in considering a concurrent resolution on the budget.'' Mr. Speaker, has Congress considered the concurrent resolution on the budget this year?

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Does the rule not state that it is the most recent CBO baseline?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Clause 10 of rule XXI, the so-called pay-as- you-go point of order says that it is not in order to consider a bill if it increases the deficit if applied today over a period of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 and the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2018. The effect on the deficit is determined by the Budget Committee relative to the most recent baseline supplied by the Congressional Budget Office ``used in considering a concurrent resolution on the budget.'' Mr. Speaker, according to the Congressional Budget Office relative to its March 2008 baseline, the Farm Bill will increase the deficit by $2.9 billion over the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2018. But if using last year's outdated 2007 baseline, CBO states that it would decrease the deficit by about $100 million over that same period, 2008 through 2017. Mr. Speaker, under clause 10 of rule XXI, which baseline provided by CBO is the most recent and should therefore be used by the Budget Committee in order to determine pay-as-you-go compliance, the March 2007 baseline or the March 2008 baseline?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Isn't it true that the concurrent budget resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2009 considered by the Budget Committee and considered and passed by the House uses the most recent baseline which is the March 2008 baseline?

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