Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I want to inquire of the time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to who has the right to close. There seems to be difficulties about that.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I will just take 30 seconds for myself. I would simply say our budget does not have the veterans fee increases. That is in the President's budget. That is not in our budget. Also, our budget does not cut Medicare and Medicaid by a half a trillion dollars. Under our budget, Medicare and Medicaid increases every year, one year after the other. We simply think it should not increase as fast as it is because we want to make it more solvent. Third point, they say this is a new vision budget that they are proposing. All they are really doing is bringing us a CBO baseline and slapping another $280 billion on top of it. That's what their budget is. The problem is that the CBO baseline requires the largest tax increase in history. That's what we don't support. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the new Member from Georgia, Dr. Broun.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, may I just ask the chairman of the Budget Committee, are you the last person? You are going to close next, no more speakers on your side; is that right?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. All right. I will address the House from the well for the remainder of my time. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have left?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I would like to say thank you to a few people. I would like to take this moment to recognize the hard work of the minority staff of the Budget Committee. I want to thank Austin Smythe, our new staff director; Chauncey Goss, Pat Knudson, Charlene Crawford, Tim Flynn, John Gray, Jim Herz, Charlotte Ivancic, Angela Kuck, Paul Restuccia, Jon Romito, Stephen Sepp and Clete Willems; and our interns, Sigurd Neubauer, Dustin Antonello, and Ryan Michaels. I am very fortunate to have very bright, very talented, and very dedicated coworkers on the Budget Committee. I also want to thank the chairman for being a gentleman and for his staff for being professional as well. I have a problem with the budget the chairman has brought to the floor. We have a different vision. It's good that we have these choices. We owe the American people a choice. We owe them two different visions to choose from in this country. That's what's good about elections. Lately, the differences have been muddled. I'm glad we are making them more clear. What do we want to do with our budget? We believe that we should do a few things. We should balance the budget, number one, and we shouldn't raise taxes. We think that it's really tough for people to afford just the cost of living today. You are filling up your gas pump at the highest prices you have ever paid before. You are paying health care costs the highest you have probably ever paid before. Food prices are up $70 a month for the average family these days. The last thing the American taxpayer needs is a big tax increase, an average of $3,000 per family per year. That's what the Democrat budget has. Now, the Democrats like to say they have this policy document in their budget. On page 48, it's the policy that we don't want these taxes to go up. Then they say, later on, but we are balancing the budget. The first 27 pages are ones that matter in this budget, the numbers. They can't have it both ways. They can't look the American people in the eye and say we are balancing the budget and we are not raising taxes, because the only way they balance the budget, you can bring out all these left- of-center experts that tell you otherwise, but according to the numbers, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the only way they balance the budget is by enacting the largest tax increase in American history. So the question is, at this time of economic uncertainty, at this time of job loss, at this time where we possibly could go into a recession, at this time of high prices of living, can we afford the Democrats' tax hike? I would like to know. I would like to get e-mails and calls from people to know, can we afford this? What is our vision? Our vision is to balance the budget without raising taxes. The key thing is we have got to save money. We are not even proposing to cut spending. We are saying instead of spending $15.832 trillion over the next 5 years, let's spend $15.32 trillion over the next 5 years. Instead of growing spending at 5.2 percent, let's grow it at 3.8 percent. In that, we are saying let's put a down payment for reform on our children and grandchildren so we can make Medicare and Social Security more solvent, so we can say to the seniors of this country we want Social Security and Medicare to last for you and for our kids. But we also say, this Congress is broken. Most people get that. We don't call earmarks congressional initiatives or investments; it's pork. If we just do away with the pork for 1 year, we can put a down payment on making sure we don't have our taxes increased. For 1 year, we can make sure we don't raise taxes on everybody who has children by $500 per child. We can make sure we are not going to tax people simply because they are married if Congress just says ``no'' for pork for a year. So what's the question? Do we want pork or paychecks? More money in workers' paychecks or more pork up here in Washington? I agree that earmarks are necessary and are a function of this branch of government. It's out of control. It's broken. It needs to be fixed. Let's stop them for a year, fix this problem so that it has the integrity and the faith that the American people deserve. While we are doing that, let's balance the budget without raising taxes. That is what our budget does. Yet you hear this same old thing in Washington every year. What they always say is, if you are doing anything other than spending as much as they want, you are cutting spending. If you are not throwing all this money at new programs, you are cutting spending, you are hurting the veterans, you are hurting children, you are hurting people, you are doing this, you are doing that. We are simply saying we need to control our spending in this town. You see, Washington doesn't have a tax revenue problem. Plenty of money is coming in. Washington has a spending problem. We have got to get our handle on that spending. By controlling that spending, by growing it at a slower pace, by putting a down payment on reform, by making Medicare more solvent, we can do those things while we balance the budget without raising taxes. That's the choice. We can have their plan with the largest tax increase in history, more and more and more spending, more earmarks, more pork, less money in our paychecks, or we can have our plan: control spending, balance the budget, keep more money in your paychecks. Because you know what? Paychecks aren't going as far as they used to. They don't cover as much groceries, as many gas tanks. They don't cover as much of health care bills as they used to. We believe it's the people's money; they believe it's Washington's money. That's the basic difference at the end of the day. We believe people ought to keep more of their own money because it is their money. They believe it's Washington money, and they want more of it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Just to be clear, it's my understanding that the minority side agrees with fixing the public pension problem along with the smoothing problem and consented to putting both of those in the bill, but the majority had rejected that offer.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3361, the Pension Protection Technical Corrections Act. Given the complexity and broad reach of the Tax Code and ERISA, and the difficult interactions between them, the measure before us is necessary to correct drafting and other errors in the Pension Protection Act of 2006. Passage of the legislation will give certainty to plan administrators, individuals, as well as government regulators and ensure the intent of Congress is fully reflected in the governing statutes. The technical corrections process is a complicated one which ensures all views are heard and which brings in experts from the relevant committees and Federal agencies. In this case, it means that bipartisan staff from both the Ways & Means Committee and the Education & Labor Committee were joined by their counterparts from the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate HELP Committee as well as representatives from the Treasury and Labor Departments and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Led by the staff of the Joint Tax Committee, the technical corrections process gives all participants a chance to review proposed changes to ensure they reflect the intent of Congress and do not change the substance of the law itself. There can be disagreements about what should and should not be considered technical. Each participant in the process has a veto. Thus, only items that were unanimously viewed as correcting a drafting mistake are included in the measure being debated today. There is one item, called smoothing, that we viewed as a particularly important technical correction but is not included in this bill because one of the parties to the process said it was not technical. Regardless of whether smoothing is technical, it is extremely important and must be passed quickly. Given that smoothing was excluded from this bill, I urge that we take up a smoothing-only bill on suspension this week. It is my understanding that the Joint Tax Committee will be publishing on their web page a complete summary of these items, and I encourage interested individuals to review it. Two final observations, Mr. Speaker, on the differences between this bill and the version passed by the Senate in December. First, since the Senate bill was passed, several additional technical items were identified, reviewed by the participants, and agreed to as being technical and conforming changes. Second, the Senate-passed bill included smoothing and a second provision that is no longer relevant. I hope that the Senate takes up the bill that we are passing today so that it can go to the President and be signed into law. I also hope that both houses quickly pass a smoothing-only bill. Mr. Speaker, while hardly glamorous, the technical corrections process is an important one, providing clarity and certainty to plan administrators and the millions of Americans who rely on these plans to help provide a secure retirement. I support passage of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. If the gentleman would yield, I simply wanted to chime in and compliment the gentlelady as well, my friend from Wisconsin. She and I coauthored an amendment to this budget resolution on this issue. It makes no sense for child support payments not to go to the children. That is unfortunately what is happening today. And I would very much like to work with the gentlelady and anybody who is interested in coming up with the offsets in the Ways and Means Committee, from which this jurisdiction derives, to find a way to fix this problem. I think this is an area that has wide bipartisan support. And this is one of those areas where I surely would like to think we can come up with the savings to fix this injustice. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains between the two sides.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a senior member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Isn't it the case that the Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 on?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes, 2 minutes to say, ``wow.'' We just heard from the sort of self-proclaimed fiscal conservative wing of the Democratic Party talking about, while it's wrong to increase debt, it's bad to send this to future generations, and then to have all of them come here and say how great it is that they're spending so much more money on all these new programs in their budget. We've also heard another claim, that there are no tax increases in this budget. Well, I've got the budget right here. The budget is a series of numbers, and the numbers are crystal clear. The numbers raise taxes. We heard from two gentlemen from Florida, two gentlemen from Tennessee and the gentlelady from South Dakota. The average annual tax increase on the average taxpayer in Arkansas is $2,462 per year. The average tax increase for the taxpayer under this budget in Florida is $3,040. The average annual tax increase for the average taxpayer in South Dakota is $2,596. And the average tax increase for the average taxpayer in Tennessee is $2,611. Now there is this thing at the end of this budget resolution in section 5, and it's a policy title. And it says, basically, we don't want to raise these taxes, we hope not to do it, but this resolution, Madam Chairman, is worth no more than the paper it's printed on. It's simply a sense of the Congress resolution. It's the legislative equivalent of passing a bill and saying, ``Have a nice day.'' This budget unequivocally, extremely clearly, relies on, depends on the largest tax increase in American history. Repealing the marriage tax penalty relief, raising income tax rates across the board, cutting in half the marriage tax penalty, bringing back the death tax in full force, raising the dividends in the capital gains tax. Real taxpayers paying really high taxes, about $3,000 on average: $2,400 in Arkansas, $3,000 in Florida, $2,600 in South Dakota, $2,600 in Tennessee. That's real money. With that, Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. McCrery.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee, the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee, Mr. Camp from Michigan.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), a member of the budget committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a senior member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Johnson.