Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we're setting a precedent here. This is new policy that we are embarking on here. And let me tell you what this means. We have always in the past done what we call a patch for the AMT. We have always said let's not let the alternative minimum tax hit all these new taxpayers. Let's prevent that tax increase from happening. Well, what is now happening is the majority is saying, instead of having this tax increase, let's have some other tax increase. That's what their PAYGO rule does. PAYGO does not mean let's live within our means, but let's expand government's growth, let's raise taxes. And 73 percent of all of the pay-fors for the bills that have come to this Congress this year have been paid for with either budget gimmicks or tax increases. That's right. Of all the wish lists of spending that the majority has brought to the floor, 73 percent of those things were either budget gimmicks or tax increases. This is a tax increase. What this is, is saying you cannot come to the floor of this Congress and prevent this new future tax increase; so we're going to make another tax increase. If you want to stop this tax increase, you've got to raise taxes. You just simply can't stop the tax increase. Now, why are we doing this? You've got to remember, Mr. Speaker, that the AMT in 1969, when it was written, was to stop 155 multimillionaires from escaping taxes. That was the idea. No one, no one ever intended it to be what it is today. It was a mistake. No one planned the alternative minimum tax to tax 23 million people in the middle class this year. No one said let's tax 30 million people in 3 years, but that's what this does. The majority's budget includes it. The majority's budget plans for it. And more important than that, Mr. Speaker, the majority is saying we may not want the alternative minimum tax, but we want that tax revenue. And that is the dangerous precedent that is being set here. This chart shows you where the majority is trying to head with taxes in America on families and businesses and entrepreneurs. The blue line shows you our average. For the last 40 years, the Federal Government has had to tax about 18.3 percent of our economy to run the Federal Government. We have had good economic growth. We've been the world's leading economic superpower. We have been the world's superpower. And we have done this by taxing our economy at about 18.3 percent. What the majority is trying to do is take us to an all new high. There are only three times in our Nation's history where we have ever exceeded taxing our Federal economy by 20 percent. Two of those were during World War II. And the majority wants not only to tax us at 20 percent; they want us to go up to 21 percent and then on up to 24 percent with this tax plan. This is a down payment on the majority's planned and intended and budgeted-for $3.5 trillion tax increase over the next 10 years. And here is what is wrong with that: not only is it morally wrong to take more and more money out of people's paychecks, by taking more of their freedom and sending it to Washington, but what is really wrong is that it lowers our standard of living. And that is what is at issue here. For the last 15 years, we have watched Europe go down this dangerous path. If you take a look at the majority's plan to bring us to this ever-higher level of taxation, add the State government, and we are on our way to taxing 35 percent of GDP. That is where the countries of Europe are. And what did Europe achieve over the last 15 years? Their per capita of GDP, our main measurement of standard of living, is a quarter less than ours. Their standard of living is 25 percent less than the American standard of living. Their unemployment rate averages 9 percent; ours is half that. So if we want to go down the road of stagnation, of high unemployment, of a lower standard of living, vote for this bill. Put us on this path.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding. You know, I want to clear up a couple of facts. The other side has been saying this provides tax relief, reducing taxes for 10 million, millions of people. No, it's not. People's taxes are not going to go down. If this bill passes, 23 million people will not see lower taxes next year. They may not see a tax increase. This is not about cutting people's taxes. This does not provide tax relief. This prevents tax increases on some and raises taxes on others. So let's be very clear here; what the majority is trying to do and what their new rules do is they say, if you want to bring a bill to the floor to address the alternative minimum tax, you better raise taxes, because that's the only legislation we'll accept. What the majority is doing is they're saying, by not raising taxes on people, we're giving them a tax cut. Holy cow. That is new logic. We are simply saying, let's not raise taxes. That's it. Period. End of story. This tax law was never meant to be. It was never designed to tax all of these people. We all agree on this. And so I find it kind of puzzling that we're bringing this bill to the floor, which we know will not pass law. The other body won't even bring it up for a vote, so it just shows how bound and determined the majority is to raise taxes, how bound and determined they are to put on this new glide path of going to taxing our economy, our society, our workers, our families more than we have in the history of our country. They are saying, we don't like the alternative minimum tax, but we want those tax revenues. So instead of taxing people this way, we are going to tax people that way and get all this new money into the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, the problem in Washington is not revenues; the problem is spending. Both sides could do a better job on spending. I freely admit that. Let's focus on controlling spending and not raise taxes.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, today, the House will consider H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007. In essence, the bill would expand the protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that prohibit discrimination on the basis of color, religion, national origin and gender to include sexual orientation. As H.R. 3685 has undergone various iterations over the previous months, I have spent a considerable amount of time weighing the implications this legislation would have on our society as a whole. My gravest concerns lie with how religious institutions would be affected. The protections afforded to these groups by our country's founders have been upheld for centuries, and I would not support any legislation that would erode those freedoms. H.R. 3685, however, provides explicit and concrete exemptions for religious institutions that are similar to the ones included in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Specifically, religious organizations, define as ``a religious corporation, association, or society; or a school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution,'' are exempted from complying with the requirements of this law. Effectively, where religious institutions are currently allowed to make hiring decisions on the basis of religion, this protection will be extended so these organizations can continue this practice. In addition, I feel strongly that non-denominational institutions, that is, religious institutions not affiliated or supported by a specific denomination, should be included in this exemption. With passage of the Miller amendment, H.R. 3685 will be adequately modified so that the hiring practices of non-denominational institutions are equally protected and will not be affected by the bill. Given this, I intend to support the legislation pending before the House. I believe individuals should be judged based on merit and their ability to perform the tasks required rather than on perceived characteristics and unrelated biases. One of the essential roles of the Federal Government is to protect the equal rights of individuals. H.R. 3685 is not a bill that grants special rights to a certain class of people. If this were the case, I would oppose the bill. This legislation simply protects the equal rights of individuals from workplace discrimination. Indeed, Congress is not alone in its attempt to end sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace. In fact, my home state of Wisconsin has had a very similar law in place since 1982. The legislation the House will consider is an extension of this type of protection. Congress has historically acted to protect workers from discrimination and I believe H.R. 3685 meets this objective.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee for yielding. Mr. Speaker, if you're not going to vote for this trade agreement, you're probably not going to vote for any trade agreement that's before us. This trade agreement is a no-brainer. This trade agreement is a bipartisan agreement. This trade agreement shows what you can get accomplished when we all work together. This trade agreement recognizes the fact that we have one-way trade right now with Peru, and with this agreement we have two-way trade. Ninety-seven percent of all of Peru's exports come into the U.S. duty free; only 2.8 percent of our goods go to Peru duty free. This lets us send our stuff there duty free. This gives us the same opportunity to send our exports as we already give the Peruvians. Now, what we hear often on the floor about why trade agreements are so bad, it's usually the trade deficit. Well, here is one interesting statistic, Mr. Speaker; 85 percent of the trade deficit comes from countries we don't have trade agreements with. You see, when we get trade agreements, we get good agreements for our country. We get the rule of law. We get enforceable contracts. We get access to their markets. Why is that important? It's important to get access to other markets because 97 percent of the world's consumers are not here in America; they're overseas. Ninety-seven percent of the world's consumers are elsewhere outside of this country. We are a mature country, a fast economy, a mature economy. We have a high standard of living relative to the rest of the world. And if we want to enjoy that high standard of living, if we want to build on that high standard of living, if we want to fulfill the American Dream, which our parents and grandparents always taught us, which is, in America, you leave the next generation better off than your generation, you've got to find more markets and more consumers for our products. We cannot possibly consume all that we make and all that we do because only 3 percent of the world's consumers are here. That's why we have to open markets; that's why we have to have access. This is a good agreement for foreign policy reasons. This is saying to the reformers in Latin America, we're with you. This is saying to the human rights movement, to individual rights, to democracy, we are with you. America stands with you. That is so important at a time when you have a threat knocking on the door from people like Chavez next door in Venezuela. Let me just read a few statistics of some of the recent successes of some of our recent free trade agreements with respect to our exports, which creates jobs, and how this has helped grow America's standard of living. Since we've had free trade agreements with these countries, here is the success: Our exports to Jordan, up 92 percent; our exports to Chile, up 150 percent; our exports to Singapore, up 49 percent; our exports to Australia, up 25 percent; our exports to Morocco, up 67 percent; our exports to Bahrain, up 40 percent. Our exports are up 15 percent this year alone. That's one of the reasons why our economy grew at an astounding rate of 3.9 percent last quarter alone, because of exports. And we all know, the statistics are very clear, that exports produce good-paying jobs. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a chance to strike a blow for enforceable contracts, for the rule of law, for worker rights in Latin America, and for jobs here in America. Again, as I mentioned in the start, this is a no-brainer. I want to thank the chairman of the Ways and Means, Mr. Rangel, for his work on this. I want to thank our ranking member, Mr. McCrery, for his work on this. And I also want to thank the people who really sweat this thing out at the negotiating table, the people at the USTR, and our Ambassador, Susan Schwab, for all of the hard work they put into this. This is one step in the right direction. Panama and Colombia are two more steps in the right direction. I urge adoption of this.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I was absent for legislative business conducted after 3 p.m. on October 31, 2007, due to a family matter that required my personal attention. As a result, I missed rollcall votes 1025 and 1026. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 1025, final passage of H.R. 3920, the Trade Adjustment and Assistance Act of 2007. In addition, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1026, a motion to instruct conferees to H.R. 3043, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. We've got a Rudy Guiliani situation here. Purple Halloween pails with witch decorations. We've got the Sponge Bob Square Pants Address Book and Journal. We've got the Thomas and Friends Wooden Railway toys. We've got the Go Diego Go Animal Rescue Boats. Very Cute Expressions. Children's toys gardening tools and the Robbie Ducky Kids watering can.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As we look at this bill, which we received this morning, it still has the same policy, just a little different cosmetics. I don't think our constituents want us to vote for a bill that makes it easier for illegal immigrants to get tax-paid health care. This bill does that. I don't think our constituents want us to vote for a bill where we spend our constituents's tax dollars to pay for insurance that people already have. This bill does that. I don't think our constituents want us to vote to create a new middle-class entitlement. This does that. This bill also is only one-half paid for. That's right, they only pay for half of this law, and they have an enormous budget gimmick that when you add it all together doubles the cost of this bill. So if the goal here is ultimately to get universal health care so that everybody has insurance, which I think most of us all share, this is not the pathway to do it. If you take a look at what it costs to fund 3.9 million people who are uninsured, that leaves us another 43 million people uninsured. At the spend rate, at the cost of that, if we want to fund everybody, it's another $400 billion. That would add $8 trillion to the debt we have for our kids and our grandkids. By doing it this way, by creating an enormous new entitlement, you are making matters worse for the baby boomers. You are making this enormous cliff we have of entitlement spending that much deeper. Madam Speaker, there is a better way to getting universal access to affordable health insurance. This is not the way. We believe in patient-centered health care, not government-centered health care. We don't think bureaucrats should be running health care, whether they are an insurance bureaucrat or a government bureaucrat. We think patients and their doctors should be running and making health care decisions. Unfortunately, this bill does not do that. This bill puts the government squarely in the middle and says if you want health care, you got to get it from the government. That's not what we believe in. That's not what we should be doing. That's why we should be voting against this bill.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Truth in Accounting Act of 2007, which I am introducing today along with Ms. Bachmann, Mr. Kirk, and Mr. Cooper. I am hopeful that this bipartisan legislation will shed greater light on the long-term fiscal challenges facing our Nation and will encourage Members to take a greater interest in addressing our out-of-control entitlement spending. At the same time, I am also hopeful our approach illustrates a potential way forward for the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) as they continue to discuss different options on how to account for our social insurance programs in the Financial Report of the U.S. Government. This legislation, which is similar to a bill introduced last session by Mr. Kirk, Mr. Cooper, and Mr. Chocola, consists of three main components. First, it requires the Financial Report to include an audited calculation of the net present value of our primary social insurance programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, among others. Second, it requires the President consider this value when making a budget proposal to Congress and fully reveal the impact of his proposal on our long-term fiscal situation. Finally, it also requires the Secretary of Treasury and the Comptroller General of GAO to testify before Congress and provide their assessment of our Nation's long-term fiscal exposures on an annual basis. I would like to briefly discuss each of these components in greater detail. The proposal to include the net present value of the Federal government's fiscal exposures comes from last year's Truth in Accounting bill. This provision would give the American public a clearer picture of the dire fiscal situation that we are facing, and it would require the Federal government to take responsibility for addressing this issue. According to the latest reports of the Medicare and Social Security trustees, we are staring at 75-year fiscal exposures of $32 trillion and $4.7 trillion for each of these programs, respectively. This means that the current level of projected revenues for these two programs is nearly $40 trillion less than is needed to pay for our projected spending on them over the next 75 years. If you include the other obligations of our government, our overall fiscal exposures are greater than $46 trillion over this time period, or about $375,000 for every full-time worker in the U.S. We cannot leave this problem unaddressed. The long-term health of our economy is at severe risk, as are the benefits that have been promised to our constituents. Including this figure in the Financial Report will finally force the federal government to level with its citizens and admit the daunting fiscal challenges we face. Furthermore, highlighting this problem will help encourage Members of Congress to take it more seriously, and to work on a bipartisan basis to address it. I am also hopeful that this aspect of our proposal can help FASAB find a compromise solution to its current impasse over a new set of accounting standards for our social insurance programs. Earlier this year, FASAB released a proposal that would recognize a liability for Social Security and Medicare once a beneficiary had completed 40 quarters of work in covered employment, the period of time required to qualify for these benefits. The liability would show up on the audited Statement of Net Cost and Balance Sheet contained within the Financial Report. This view was met with substantial controversy and FASAB is not expected to move forward with it. While I believe that FASAB's primary approach has a great deal of merit, I understand the critiques made against it. Opponents justifiably pointed out that this proposal fails to credit the government for the revenues that these programs are projected to receive over the same time period and perhaps inappropriately calls these commitments ``liabilities'' even though they do not represent contractual obligations. In addition, the primary proposal could make the current measure of accrual liabilities unusable since the size of the Social Security and Medicare components would dwarf the liabilities of other programs and possibly hide their own set of problems and concerns. Our proposal addresses all of these concerns. It would fully account for projected revenues, would use the terminology ``fiscal exposures'' instead of ``liabilities'' to reflect the true nature of the obligation, and would leave the current accrual measures untouched so they could still be used by policymakers. At the same time, it would ensure that a measure of our fiscal exposures is on the audited portion of the Financial Report for the first time ever. I am hopeful that this is the type of compromise that FASAB could accept. While it may not go as far as some of the board members and some Members of Congress may hope, I believe that it makes real, although admittedly incremental, progress at uncovering the true nature of our long-term obligations. The second component of this bill comes from an amendment Mr. Cooper offered during consideration of the House Budget Resolution in 2006, which passed the Budget Committee in a bipartisan manner. I strongly support this proposal and commend Mr. Cooper for his leadership on the matter. I am hopeful that the Budget Committee, of which I am the Ranking Member, will seek to permanently enact this provision. I look forward to working with Mr. Spratt and other distinguished Members of the Committee to accomplish this. Finally, this proposal would require the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller General of the GAO to testify before Congress on our fiscal exposures. The Secretary of the Treasury would have to testify on the Financial Report, which is a document that far too few Members of Congress, let alone the public, are aware of. While Members such as Mr. Cooper and Mr. Kirk have done a great job in recent years in starting to build awareness of this document, this proposal would take the next important step. The Comptroller General would also have to report to Congress on the full extent of our fiscal exposures on an annual basis. This would go a long way toward ensuring that Members of Congress and the public start paying attention to these daunting figures. Our current Comptroller General, Mr. Walker, has fought vigorously on this matter and has done an excellent job of alerting people to the challenges we face. This would give him a regular forum in which to do so and allow him to continue performing an excellent service to the Nation. Before I close, I would like to thank the other lead cosponsors for allowing me to join their effort. This issue is something that Mr. Cooper and Mr. Kirk have worked diligently on for years and I am glad to be a part of the latest version of their bill. Ms. Bachmann also deserves immense credit for drawing on her financial background and striving to become a leader in Congress in this area. She was instrumental in putting together this legislation and ensuring the participation of such a strong bipartisan coalition. I am truly hopeful that our fiscal exposures will not continue to go unnoticed and that we can help build congressional support for entitlement reform. The challenges we face are too big to ignore. If we do not level with the American people about the true nature of this problem and seek to address it, we will be jeopardizing the economy and standard of living of future generations.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge an extraordinary staff member who has moved on after 20 years with the House Budget Committee, Jim Bates. James T. Bates, the Committee's Republican chief of staff, recently accepted a position as associate program director at the Office of Management and Budget. Ordinarily, that would be a significant, though not surprising, step in a career dedicated to Washington fiscal policy. But there is nothing ordinary about this case. Jim Bates's two decades of service represents the longest tenure of any Budget Committee staffer. He served in various capacities during this time, including those of minority counsel, chief majority counsel and deputy chief of staff before rising to the top slot in late 2004. In each of those roles he demonstrated a singular dedication. He came to be known as a true believer in the value of congressional budgeting; a stickler for adhering to the budget disciplines written in law and in convention; and a thoroughly convinced proponent of the institution of the Budget Committee. He is as closely identified with the committee as is the Congressional Budget Act itself. It is nearly impossible to think of one without the other. Mr. Speaker, you can't go back over the last 20 years and look at the enforcement of the Budget Committee, the preservation of the Budget Act, without thinking of Jim Bates. Jim started with the committee in January of 1988, a time when the Republican minority offices were across Highway 395, on the second floor of the Ford Office Building, then simply called Annex Two. He worked initially as a budget analyst, covering Income and Social Security, but before long he found his real niche as committee counsel. Here, he mastered the intricate details and subtleties of the Budget Act; he vigorously protected the committee's jurisdiction, and, when possible, expanded it. He also developed a unique understanding of budget arcana, something I can clearly testify to, such as the Gramm- Rudman baseline or the pay-as-you-go rule. Here are some highlights of his congressional career: he participated in the famous Andrews Air Force Base negotiations that produced the budget agreement of 1990. In 1993, he coordinated drafting the narrowly defeated Penny-Kasich amendment. In 1997, he anchored the legislative language for the Balanced Budget Act, which a year later produced the first budget surplus in nearly four decades. Shortly thereafter, he developed a bipartisan plan for the first comprehensive budget process reform since the Budget Act was created in 1974. In 2005, he oversaw the staff work that led to that year's Deficit Reduction Act, the first in a long time. In 2006, he was immensely helpful to me in writing the Legislative Line Item Veto Act, designed to allow the President to strike individual spending items without violating Congress's constitutional prerogatives. Jim is an avid fisherman, which shows a greatness of soul. He is a fan of the renowned author Ray Bradbury, which reflects a creative mind. He might misplace his car keys or his BlackBerry, but he has never lost his conviction about budgeting, or his integrity. Yet, of all Jim's qualities, perhaps the most important is the trust that he has earned from Members and colleagues alike. It is because of that trust that when I was chosen to be the Budget Committee's ranking Republican last December, my first and easiest decision was keeping Jim as the chief of staff. He was and still is simply irreplaceable. Mr. Speaker, let me close simply by saying that there aren't a lot of people in this town who really understand how the Budget Committee works, how this budget process works, let alone people who really know the best ideas and ways of making it work better. Jim Bates is one of the handful of people in this town who knows this. You can count the people on one hand who really know the Budget Act, know how to make it work and know how to make it work better. Jim Bates is one of those. This institution, this Congress, both from the Democrat side and the Republican side, owe a large debt of gratitude for the service of this fine servant, Jim Bates.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, Racine, Wisconsin, native and author Kevin Henkes is to be commended for his numerous literary achievements. Recognized as an outstanding children's author, Henkes has contributed to the national landscape of children's literature and delighted children with his thoughtful mixture of words and art. Born in Racine, Henkes attended the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He currently lives in Madison with his wife, Laura, and their children. Several of Henkes' books have garnered awards, including the prestigious Caldecott for Kitten's First Full Moon in 2005. He also received the Elizabeth Burr/Worzalla Award for a Wisconsin author/ illustrator for Kitten's First Full Moon (2005), Sun and Spoon (1997), Protecting Marie (1995), and Words of Stone (1993). On October 14, 2007, the Racine Public Library will honor Henkes when one of his works, Julius, the Baby of the World, is performed as a musical for over 4,600 first- and second-grade students and the general public. The Downtown Rotary Club, Friends of the Library, Hughes House, Johnson Foundation, Junior League of Racine, Kiwanis Club of West Racine, Over Our Head Players, the Racine Community Foundation, and the Racine Public Library Endowment Fund have all contributed to this celebration.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. So Youngstown, Ohio, is now the home of the WBO/WBC middleweight champion of the world.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. It's socialized medicine and then people are going to private health care. You say that it's a Democratic ploy and we have all this Republican support. The President says he's for the program, but 840,000 kids would get knocked off of it. It just doesn't work. So I'm glad we're here to clean it up and come do our job. So good seeing everybody. Did I announce last night, I wanted to announce before we close that Kelly Pavlik from Youngstown won the middleweight title on Saturday and what a great kid he is.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. We just hang out in the glow.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, The Racine Public Library is to be commended for its years of service to the people of Racine, WI. On October 14, 2007, the library will celebrate 75 years of preschool storytime. The Junior League of Racine, which has sponsored the storytime since it began in 1932, and the Choral Arts Society of Southeastern Wisconsin have partnered to bring to the stage a musical version of the beloved children's classic, ``Julius, the Baby of the World.'' It will be performed for over 4,600 first- and second-grade students, and the event will celebrate both the Racine Public Library's commitment to children and Racine native and children's author Kevin Henkes. Participants in this great celebration include the Downtown Rotary Club, Friends of the Library, Hughes House, the Johnson Foundation, the Junior League of Racine, the Kiwanis Club of West Racine, Over Our Head Players, the Racine Community Foundation, and the Racine Public Library Endowment Fund. The Racine Public Library has the distinction of being the first in the Nation to present preschool storytime in 1932. Since then, the library has continued to pursue innovation and remains dedicated to children's programming.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, a couple of things: number one, we are not dedicating enough time to this debate. A half-hour is not enough time to debate what this is really all about. This is not just about health care, health insurance for low-income children. If that is all this was about, then we could pass this with 2 minutes of debate, unanimous consent, voice vote, everyone would agree. That is not what this debate is about. This debate goes far beyond that, and the American people deserve to have a much more honest, much more thorough debate about what really is being discussed here. This is a misleading bill. This is a misleading debate. This is misleading, number one, because this is really all about whether or not the Federal Government should run health care for most Americans or not. All of us in this room, Republicans and Democrats, believe that Americans ought to have access to affordable health insurance. All Americans. We all believe that. The question is, should the government run it, or should health care be a decision between patients and their doctors? Let's have a debate about that. The reason this is a misleading debate is because this bill takes more health insurance away from children with private insurance than it gives to children without insurance. We are taking more people off of private insurance than we are giving to uninsured children. If we wanted to just give uninsured children health insurance, let's do it. This bill is misleading because it gives children health insurance for 5 years, and then it pushes them off a cliff. I call it the majority's ``bait and switch SCHIP funding.'' It says 5 million children get it now; 5 million children 6 months into 2012 get nothing. $41 billion is hidden out of this bill. Who believes that that is going to happen? In order to contort their way into their PAYGO rule, they are giving on the one hand and taking out with the other. But what this debate is really about is putting the government in the middle of that decision between the patient and their doctor. I don't want a bureaucrat running health care. I don't want an HMO bureaucrat running health care, and I don't want a government bureaucrat running health care. I want patients running health care with their doctors. That is what this debate is really about. This debate is about getting more and more and more government in the middle of the health care decisions between patients and their doctors. This is a debate about getting us on that path toward government-run health care. That is a big debate. It deserves more than a half-hour of debate. And, unfortunately, the majority is misleading the American people by saying this is only about low-income children, when they are bringing us a bill that displaces kids off of private health insurance, goes to virtually to anybody of any income if a State wants to, and goes way beyond the idea of insuring low-income children. Let's give low-income children health insurance, and let's have a big debate on whether the government ought to be running health care in America or not.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this. My friend from North Dakota said in the debate a minute ago that the minority doesn't want the government to help business. That was kind of an odd characterization. Here's what the minority wants: We want Congress to keep its word. And what do I mean when I say that? In the beginning of this Congress, Congress said that they were going to pay for things as they go. We were going to have this vaunted PAYGO rule that when we commit new spending, we will pay for it. We won't do deficit spending. What does this bill do? This bill thumbs its nose at the PAYGO system. I think the best description of how this bill is not paid for was written in Congress Daily this morning, and I quote: ``The House will take up legislation today to renew the Federal Government's Terrorism Risk Insurance Program despite concerns that it violates PAYGO rules. CBO has ruled that the bill, which would reauthorize and expand the program for 15 years and cost the Federal government $3.7 billion over 5 years, $10.4 billion over a 10-year period. House leaders pulled the bill last week because it carried no offsets, but Democratic leaders found a way around the problem by requiring that if an attack occurred, Congress would have to vote again in a fast-track procedure to release the funds contained in the bill.'' Well, to do it justice, it's about $8.4 billion net cost, just to set the record straight for the minority. What they're basically doing here is they're declaring this an emergency when an emergency hasn't even occurred yet. They're basically declaring this emergency spending, outside of the budget rules, not paid for, $8.4 billion, before an emergency has even occurred. I've seen gimmicks in my day, Mr. Chairman, but this one takes the cake. This violates PAYGO. If it doesn't do it technically, it sure does it in spirit. So if we're going to say we're going to pay for legislation, then, by golly, let's pay for legislation. This doesn't do that. Not to mention the fact that this crowds out the private sector. Not to mention the fact that this tells all the insurers, go ahead and release this insurance, and if a terrorist attack occurs, we'll have some emergency legislation that pays for it after the fact. It's kind of like telling the homeowner, you don't have to pay premiums on your insurance until after your house has been burnt down, then pay your premiums and then we'll give you your payback. It doesn't work like that. That's not how insurance works. That's not how taxpayers pay their bills. That's not how Congress should operate. And, more importantly, that is not the rules that this Congress said it would operate under. This violates those rules. If not technically, it sure does so in spirit. And I think when Congress says it's a new day, that we're going to pay for our spending, by golly, that's exactly what Congress ought to do, and that is not what this Congress is doing. For this and many other reasons, Mr. Chairman, this legislation is flawed. It should be defeated. It encourages a crowding out of the private sector. And more importantly, it doesn't pay for the promises that are being committed here today. That is wrong. That violates the rhetoric and the principles that the majority has set out for itself. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, and I choose my words carefully when I say this, but this bill really, in my opinion, is a cynical attempt to make a campaign promise good. When I say that, I mean it's three things: number one, in the guise of budget reconciliation, the reason this bill is here so quickly to the floor, through conference so fast, out of the other body is they brought it to the floor through budget reconciliation. What is budget reconciliation? It's a way of reducing the deficit, $752 million of savings for over $20 billion of spending. That's a cynical attempt to exploit the budget deficit reduction process to create a brand-new government program and an avalanche of new spending. Why else is it cynical? It cuts student rates in half for 6 months, and then it doubles it 6 months later to try and shoehorn this bill into compliance with the majority's PAYGO. To try and say that they are paying for this bill, they give students, graduates, not students, graduates a cut in their interest rates for 6 months in half and then double it 6 months later. It also, cynically, creates five new entitlement programs. What are entitlement programs? Entitlement programs are spending programs that go on autopilot. It has sunsets in these programs, but the most permanent thing in Washington is a temporary government program, especially a temporary entitlement program. Take all this together, and assume that Congress, down the road, will not eliminate these five new entitlement programs once they've been established. Assume they won't just cut interest rates for graduates for only 6 months, but for longer, and you've got another 20 to $30 billion of spending out the door. And lastly, Madam Speaker, this takes from the private sector and gives to the government. This puts onto the taxpayers' liability these liabilities. This says, instead of private firms that are out there processing loans right now that worked really well, my student loans came from these sources, this says, no, we want the taxpayer to bear the burden. We want the taxpayer to be on the hook for these loans if they default. Look, we have problems with loans all over. We have this meltdown in the mortgage markets with sub-prime loans, and we're saying, now, in Congress, let's put more liability on the taxpayer books? If it ain't broken, don't fix it. We have a system that works well. We have a system that helps students. This bill does nothing to address the high cost of tuition. It cynically attempts to make it appear as though it makes borrowing a little less expensive for people after they graduate, and then it doubles the interest rate 6 months later. For all of those reasons, Madam Speaker, the abuse of the budget reconciliation process, the increase of taxpayer liability, and the creation, irresponsibly, of five new entitlement programs, when three current entitlement programs right now are bringing us into a mountain of debt, a mountain, a legacy of debt to our children and grandchildren, the last thing we ought to do is create five new entitlement programs. For all those reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote, Madam Speaker.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I rise in opposition to this for a number of reasons. Does anybody on Earth think that by raising taxes on oil and gas that we're not going to raise prices on oil and gas? Does anybody believe that we're not going to raise gas prices with this bill? Does anybody believe that we're not going to make it more expensive for people to heat their homes? Does anybody believe we're not going to make us more dependent on foreign oil? That's what this bill does. This bill raises gas prices, makes it more expensive for us to heat our homes, make us more dependent on foreign oil, and less competitive internationally. It could have been a good bill. It could have done more to make us less dependent on foreign oil. It could have helped us do more to make us energy independent, renewable. And why are we raising all these taxes? So we can come up with a new pork barrel spending program to give to big cities to spend as they wish. Why on Earth would we do that when we're going to make our constituents pay higher gas prices? The intentions are noble. The delivery is bad. This policy has been tried before, and it has failed. I urge defeat of this bill because it is a missed opportunity. It's a missed opportunity to a real bipartisan success, like we had in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, where we invested in hydrogen, in renewable energy, in conservation and, yes, in more domestic production. That's what we should do. You can't do one and not the other. We need to produce more energy here so we're less dependent on foreign oil. That's very important. This does none of that. It goes in the wrong direction. We need to incentivize conservation. There's some conservation incentives here. We need to do more on renewables and do it in such a way where it's not picking winners and losers; where the best technology gets funded. Sadly, this bill says we're going to pick this technology and not that technology, and by doing so, we're hurting tomorrow's breakthroughs, tomorrow's innovations. What we really ought to do is make us less dependent on foreign oil, lower gas prices, lower home heating costs, more conservation, and not pick winners and losers, and incentivize tomorrow's breakthroughs so the genius of America can continue to expand and come up with those new technologies we never heard of before. Sadly, this prevents that from happening. It disincentivizes that. I urge a ``no'' vote because we shouldn't be raising taxes, doing budget gimmicks and making it more expensive for us to take our kids to school, to go to work and heat our homes.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, this bill and the bill that just passed before us is a fiscal Frankenstein. It is a typical pattern: more budget gimmicks on spending, more tax increases. Last week, a farm bill passed. Budget gimmicks, tax increases. Earlier this week, the SCHIP bill passed. Budget gimmicks, tax increases. Today, right now, these energy bills are passing. What are they? Budget gimmicks, tax increases. Right now, the bill that just passed before had $6 billion in savings that were used last week in last week's farm bill, all to give the appearance that the majority is keeping their word on their PAYGO. More importantly, these bills, in addition to their budget gimmicks, raise taxes on consumers. This will cost our constituents at their pocketbooks and at the pump. The worst part of this bill, I think, aside from the fact that it seeks to pick winners and losers in the marketplace, to do nothing, nothing, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, to reduce our independence, it has $6 billion of walk-around money, of green pork, for large city mayors and Governors. No accountability. Just as long as it is in the spirit of green, in the spirit of, you know, energy, you get the money. Every time we have ever built a new program before, as this one does, you have example after example of waste, fraud and abuse. It doesn't do a thing to help the environment, it doesn't do a thing to help our fiscal balance sheet, but it does everything to create a new program that wastes money, that requires higher taxes. We are seeing a consistent pattern here: more spending gimmicks and more tax increases. These tax increases will raise prices. They will raise prices on energy. They will raise gas prices. This is a missed opportunity, and the missed opportunity is we could have worked together to make ourselves less dependent on foreign oil, do a better job on energy conservation, and advance the cause for renewables. Sadly, this does not do it, because it is more budget gimmicks and spending increases.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this debate is really puzzling. If this was a status quo bill, if this was the same law that we already have in place, no new people, then why does it cost $130 billion in more money? Why does it cost so much more? This bill goes way beyond insuring low-income children. If this was all about just giving health insurance to uninsured low-income children, no problem. You would have a near unanimous vote out of here. That's not what this bill does. They say this bill doesn't have those income limits. This bill has no income limits. This bill says to the States, give it to whomever you want, no asset test, no income limits. That's why this test costs so much money. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office is saying in analyzing this bill that they will push 2.4 million kids off of private insurance onto government health care, not my statistics, the Congressional Budget Office. They are already acknowledging that this is more about insuring low- income, uninsured kids. This is really about putting people on government health care, especially those who even have health insurance today. My friends, our constituents, the U.S. taxpayer, don't want to pay for health care that's already being paid for by someone else. But that is what this bill does. This bill creates an enormous budget mess. I find it kind of ironic that the majority that could not find $1 worth of entitlement savings in their budget comes to this floor with $200 billion of cuts to Medicare to pay for expanding this new program. When it came time to reducing the deficit and keeping taxes low, no savings to be found. Now, hey, $200 billion in Medicare cuts, cut 3 million seniors off the Medicare Advantage program to grow a new entitlement. Yes, this is a new entitlement program, a new entitlement for States. It gives them a never-ending spigot of new money. But what's so, so critical, what's so hypocritical about this bill is, after cranking up spending for 5 years, after putting 5 million children on health care, kicking 2.4 million off of private health insurance, what do they do to conform with their PAYGO rules? What do they do to shoehorn this huge program into their budget? They just kick everybody off. They just rescind the program. They just turn the spigot money off. Does anybody believe that after putting 5 million people on health insurance we are just going to take it away from them in 2014? No, we're not. So this whole thing really is a bug sham. What they are saying is, with this legislation, we want to give 5 million people health insurance for kids, no matter what income limit. But, in 2014, we are taking it away from them. That's crazy. That's not budgeting. That's creating a new program, a new entitlement, and not paying for it. This puts our fiscal house, which is already messed up, in serious jeopardy. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I appreciate the applause. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we do everything we can to save money in light of the fact that we are creating a massive new entitlement program later this week with this bill that is coming to the floor. I think it is important that we show leadership at every facet of the Federal government. That is why this amendment, which now I believe saves $100,000 from the USDA Administrative Account Budget, is worth supporting, simply because of the fact that the new SCHIP bill opens a whole new open-ended entitlement. In the past, SCHIP has always been a program that was capped, that had an authorization. Now we have a program that has no income limits, that requires people to actually self-certify. If they say they are eligible, they are eligible. Anybody can get it. Warren Buffett's child could get SCHIP. More important to the fact is this, Mr. Chairman. The reason that it is important to save $100,000 from the USDA budget is it is going to cost a lot of money when this SCHIP bill passes and it pushes people out of private health insurance onto government health insurance. That is precisely what this will do. Eighty-nine percent of the children in families with incomes between 300 percent and 400 percent of poverty and 95 percent of families above 400 percent of poverty have private health insurance. What this bill will do is push those children out of the private health insurance that their parents and their employers are paying for and make taxpayers pay for that health insurance. This is an enormous, enormous expansion of our government program, which takes choice away from patients on health insurance and makes them take this government one-size-fits-all, bureaucratic-driven health care. And that is why we need to support removing $100,000 from the administrative budget from the USDA, because we have a long ways to go to save the money to pay for this bill. This bill, as it left the Ways and Means Committee, was $76 billion over the budget in that it violated the majority's PAYGO by $76 billion. The bill that was brought to the Energy and Commerce Committee that wasn't reported out was $91 billion PAYGO noncompliant. Why is this, Mr. Chairman? Well, another reason why I think we need to save money by cutting $100,000 from the USDA's administrative budget is that they cut Medicare. Not just a little bit, but deeply. They raid the Medicare trust fund, and they cut and eviscerate the Medicare Advantage program. Mr. Chairman, I bet every one of us has done a town hall meeting whereby we have heard constituents when we are talking about Medicare say: You know what? You people in Congress ought to give us the same health insurance that you have. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what Medicare Advantage is. Just like we as Members of Congress have, just like we in the Federal employment health benefit, we have the ability to choose among providers who are competing against each other for our benefit. We get to choose among providers. We have choice. That is exactly what we are giving to Medicare beneficiaries with the Medicare Advantage program. These plans compete against each other for the beneficiary's business, and each Medicare beneficiary gets to choose traditional Medicare or Medicare Advantage plan, and that active choice has driven down prices and has driven up quality and customer satisfaction. The bill coming to the floor this week will cut 3 million people off the Medicare Advantage program. It will say to all those people who chose to have this plan that gives them comprehensive Medicare coverage: No, you have to have the one-size-fits-all government monopoly plan. You can't have this choice that looks like what Members of Congress have. That is why we need to cut $100,000 from the USDA budget, because all these deep Medicare cuts to pay for a massive expansion of a new entitlement program at a time when all these other programs are going bankrupt is a step in the wrong direction. That is why I urge adoption the gentleman's second-degree amendment, and I thank him for yielding me time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I rise in opposition to this rule, Mr. Speaker, for many reasons. Number one, this has become common practice for the new majority. But the farm bill reauthorization calls for massive new entitlement spending, no serious reform, and it makes a complete mockery of the PAYGO process. Number one, this is not a fair rule. An amendment that I offered on a bipartisan basis with Mr. Blumenauer from Oregon to cap farm payments, which was made an order in 2002, which received 200 votes, was denied. So based on the lack of fairness on this rule, I urge that it goes down. But what about the substance of this bill? This bill extends farm commodity programs with no real reforms. At a time of record-high prices and prosperity for many farmers, this extends the commodity programs at 5 years with no reform. The payment limit is a sham. It has thin window-dressing payment limits on commodity programs while actually removing the payment limits on the marketing loan program. It has an anticompetitive tax increase in here which will raise taxes on American businesses that are owned by foreign companies: Nestle, Case New Holland, Chrysler. This will tax jobs out of America, and it increases entitlement spending. And the only reason this bill ends up adding up on paper is because of a bogus $4.7 billion timing shift. CBO has already told us that this bill will spend $5 billion more than it pretends to spend simply out of the timing window within which it spends. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is on paper they are showing savings. In reality and in real life, they are spending over the limit, and they are breaking the budget by at least $5 billion. And what is worse, Mr. Speaker, is this engages in the worst form of protectionism. This bill raises taxes on our taxpayers, raises prices on consumers, and it does so at the expense of people in the developing world. It hurts people in the developing world from lifting their own lives up out of poverty and despair. So while we had a chance to have a good, bipartisan farm bill that had reform, that brought the market reform to bear, that could have helped the family farmer, we are saying no. The farm bill ought to be about helping the family farmer in tough times, not giving million-dollar checks to big farmers, not giving checks out at good times. Unfortunately, that is what this bill does in addition to the phony PAYGO and shifting of $4.7 billion around like Enron accounting. With that I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment for a number of reasons. Number one, it's high time we reform our agricultural programs which are Depression-era. This is a modest amendment from the original aggressive reforms. It puts in place the reforms that the USDA experts said that we ought to put in place for the safety net. Let me just address what the safety net really is. Should we or should we not give million-dollar checks to farmers making $1 million? Should we have a farm program that helps the family farmer at a time when they're struggling? Should those payments go to farmers when they're making record high prices, when they're doing well? Or should these programs go to them when they're hurting? That's what this amendment does. This amendment also pays for itself; no budget gimmicks, no timing shift, no tax increases. It actually reduces the deficit by $2 billion in 5 years and $14 billion over 10. It actually boosts conservation. It actually boosts nutrition. Let me just address the payment limit. This bill right here says we will allow farmers to have aggregate program payments that are at least 12 times the poverty rate. Isn't that high enough? The average poverty rate for a family of four is $20,500. This amendment says let's allow the farm payment to a family of four be as high as a quarter of a million dollars. Yet the committee's bill says, no, that's not good enough. It has to be unlimited in some senses or a million-dollar AGI for others. Madam Chairman, let's get our priorities straight. Lets have a farm bill that doesn't distort our trade posture in the international community. If we pass the base bill, it hurts us internationally to get better trade agreements and open markets for our farmers. If we pass the base bill, it hurts us from helping people in the developing world lift their lives out of poverty. If you vote for the Kind-Flake amendment, you will help us internationally open markets to farmers, you will preserve a modern safety net that helps farmers when they need it and the family farmers when they need it, and you will save money for the taxpayer, you will put savings in nutrition, you will put savings in conservation, and you will help reduce the deficit. This is a responsible amendment. It's a responsible bill. It is the right way forward, and this is what really, truly, needy family farms need. We don't need to be cutting checks in the seven-figure range for people with AGIs, adjusted gross incomes, of $1 million. We need to say 12 times the poverty rate's enough. That's what we need to say, and by voting for this amendment, that's what we are saying. Help the family farmer, help conservation, help nutrition and reduce the deficit. Vote for this amendment.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for posing this amendment. The reason we are here today, Mr. Chairman, is because this is overbudget. Take a look at this bill right here. It is $2.8 billion above the President's request and includes a $3.1 billion boost for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. There are also some phony gimmicks in this spending bill. As noted, the bill provides phony offsets for spending increases by rescinding budget authority with no outlay savings. So what you are doing, you are actually canceling something that doesn't really exist to show paper savings so you can spend it somewhere else. Now, this is an old trick that has been done on both sides of the aisle over the years, but it still doesn't make it right. The problem we have with this bill, as the preceding bills and the following appropriations bills, is it is $34 billion above last year's spending level just for what we have passed so far. That is $19 billion above the President's request. This majority's spending bills are going to be $81 billion above last year's spending level. When you look at the budget resolution, this bill does conform to the budget resolution. It meets 302(b). What that means in budget talk is they are conforming to their budget. But what does their budget do? Their budget leads to the largest tax increase in American history. If you accept these spending increases, which, on average, are 9 percent spending increases for discretionary spending, three times the rate of inflation, three times the rate of wage growth, three times the ability for families to be able to afford this expense, three times the rate that our family incomes go up at best, if you accept these spending increases, that means you are accepting the plan in the budget, and the plan in the budget is to raise taxes. Not by a little bit, by a lot. What tax increases are they specifically calling for in the budget resolution that this is a part of? Getting rid of the marriage penalty, bringing it back altogether; reducing the child tax credit in half; raising income tax rates across the board for every single working American and every single working family; bringing the death tax back in full force; raising taxes on capital gains and dividends, which makes it easier for people to save for retirement, and that creates jobs. So the problem we have here, Mr. Chairman, is not a revenue problem. We have had double-digit revenue increases coming to the Federal Government for the past 3 years in a row. The deficit just went down this year again by 18 percent because of faster revenue growth. So we don't have the problem with the money coming in. We don't need to raise taxes. Plenty of money is coming in to the coffers of Washington. The problem we have is spending. We are just spending too much money too quickly. If we want to balance the budget without raising taxes, we have to control spending. That's the lesson we've learned. Now, what does this bill do? This bill irresponsibly increases spending too fast. Are there important functions that are in this bill? Yes. Are there important things that the government needs to do, roads and bridges and transportation? Yes. The problem I have with this bill is it doesn't have fiscal discipline. It doesn't contain a budget cap that makes sure we won't raise taxes. So, by subscribing to the budget increases, the spending increases in the bill and the appropriations bills before it and the ones that are yet to come, it puts us on that glide path, on that trajectory to having the largest tax increase in American history. We don't want those taxes to be increased, and we sure don't want to support budgets that put us on the path to making it a sure thing, and that, Mr. Chairman, is why I think we should vote against this. I think we should also have better budgeting. I don't think we should be rescinding phony budget authority to then use it for outlays. So, if we get rid of the gimmicks, this thing wouldn't even comport with the budget resolution itself. So with that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.