Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman for his leadership on health care issue, not only the fact that you're practicing physician, but also your leadership here in Congress, and the gentleman from New Jersey as well. I just listened to this conversation you're having in my office, and I wanted to come down and just add maybe a few facts. I missed part of your debate as I walked over here. But we're looking at all these various SCHIP bills to renew this program, and we looked at what the other body is doing over in the Senate. They propose a new $35 billion expansion of the program, but what we find in their legislation is that, not only do they provide a $35 billion expansion, they provide another $35 billion expansion after that in 5 years. Then to contort their budgets to make it all work, they actually say that we will cut off 4.5 million children off of SCHIP insurance to make their numbers work, meaning they have a budget gimmick. The budget gimmick is, they're going to put as much money into this program as possible, but to fit in their contorted budget window, they will just assume that in about 9 years everybody's knocked off of health insurance. Both you and I know that that's not going to happen, but what we have over here in this body is an even larger SCHIP expansion, a $50 billion SCHIP expansion which translates into $100 billion SCHIP expansion if their full 10-year ambitions are realized. And what does that mean? What they're talking about is having all families at 400 percent of poverty, a family of four earning $80,000, being on government health care. What they're talking about is the largest expansion of Washington-controlled bureaucratic health care we have seen in decades, and this expansion of Washington-controlled bureaucratic health care is not the recipe for America. All of us know from the fact that we represent Americans that the cost to health care and the cost of health insurance is an enormous crisis in America today. Finding good quality, affordable health care is a big problem. And so what the majority is doing is, rather than attacking the root cause of health care inflation, rather than looking at what is producing these high costs, they're simply saying we will just pay for more of that from the government. They simply want to take more control in Washington and go down the same path, the same path where, today, we spend two-and-a-half times per person on health care of any other industrialized world; yet, today, we have 46 million people who have no health insurance. We have a system today where all the fiscal experts in Washington and across America from the left and the right are telling us health care's unsustainable, the entitlements in this country are bankrupting America, that our children and grandchildren simply won't be able to pay for the government of tomorrow because of the cost of health care today and the trajectory it's on. We believe in a different philosophy, a different alternative. We believe we can have affordable, accessible health care that is patient- centered, that is patient-driven and patient-controlled health care. And so that is why we have a very different vision of this Washington-controlled bureaucratic health care, where the patient and his or her doctor are making the decisions in health care, where we actually go at the root cause of health care inflation and attack those causes so that people get affordable health care at a good price and good quality, and that the patients are the ones who are the drivers of the system. Today, under the third party payment system we have today, either an HMO bureaucrat or a government bureaucrat's making the decisions, and we as consumers really don't care what things cost because someone else is paying the bills. We can't shop around based on quality and price because we don't know what quality and price is or we're told who and where we've got to go to by our closed network. That's a system that's unsustainable. That's a system that we have today, but this is the system that the majority wants to not only expand, but they want to turn more of it over to Washington, more of it over to government bureaucrats making our health care decisions which will cost us even more money, $50 billion to be specific, in this bill that's going through the Ways and Means Committee and Commerce Committee this week. But the key here is that we have 16 percent of the GDP, 16 percent of the economic output of this country is dedicated to just health care. The Democrats want that to grow and grow and grow. What's ironic about this is the other 84 percent of health care doesn't work like the 16 percent of GDP that health care consumes, because the other 84 percent of our economy operates on the basic free market premise of competition, competition on price, competition on quality. If you don't do a good job, you don't get more business. If you're not price competitive, people aren't going to buy your product. Unfortunately, that is not how health care works today, and those are the reforms that we want to inject into health care so that people can get affordable, accessible health insurance coverage, health care that is very high quality and that doesn't grow at 6, 10, 20, 18 percent of price increases every single year. So we have two different philosophies, two different visions of where we want to go to with health care. We very much believe in putting the patient at the center of the equation, giving the patient and their physician control over the health care system so health care providers, rather than oligopolistic pricing, rather than just raising prices on everybody, will compete again for our business on price and quality. What the majority wants to do is continue this system, where providers continue to raise prices over and over and over, third parties make the decision whether it's a bureaucrat at an insurance company or a bureaucrat in Washington, and they simply want to raise more taxes to pay for more of this. In this particular bill, they want to cut Medicare patients. They want to raise taxes on low-income individuals in order to pay for this unprecedented expansion of Washington-controlled bureaucratic health care. To me, that's not the right way to go. It's not the right priorities, and what it will do will be to get more difficult for small businesses, individuals, families and even large businesses to be able to afford health insurance. That's not the path to take. That's the way that's going to bankrupt this country. That's going to raise our taxes and that's going to take health care decisions away from individuals and families. That's the approach that we want to go, and I just am pleased to see that my colleague from Georgia and New Jersey have joined in this debate on the floor because it's a very important debate. I would argue that the cost and affordability and accessibility of health care is the largest domestic crisis facing America today, and it's high time we do something about this. I just want to thank the gentleman for including me in this debate.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. So what the gentleman is saying is because you have so many families and children with private health insurance, with this new expansion, taxpayers will be replacing that private health insurance and paying for families who already have health insurance?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. All three entitlement programs that are in place today, Medicare, Medicaid Social Security, all go bankrupt in about 10 years. It's because we are doubling the amount of retirees in this country at a time where we were only increasing those taxpayers into the program by 17 percent. So we are seeing a 100 percent increase of the consumers of those three entitlements, while only experiencing a 17 percent increase of the taxpayers in these entitlements. That's why these three programs are going bankrupt. That's why these three programs will consume 100 percent of our budget by about 2030. By about the year 2040, when my kids are my age, they will have to pay twice the level of taxes we pay today just to keep today's Federal Government going at that time. We have run this Federal Government remarkably constant at about 18 percent of GDP. We have had to tax the U.S. economy at about 18 percent of the output of the economy just to run the Federal Government for about the last 40 years. And what we are on the trajectory today because of the aging of America and way the entitlement programs are designed and the baby boomers retiring, my children will have to pay 40 percent of GDP just to keep today's Federal Government going when they are at my age group. You can't have a strong growing economy, a high standard of living. So what we are in the middle of doing here, we are deciding whether or not we are going to sever that American legacy to our children and grandchildren. And the American legacy that I was taught by my parents was that you leave the country better off for the next generation than when you received it. You leave a standard of living better off for your children and grandchildren than that which you received from your parents. We are at risk of severing that legacy for our children and grandchildren if we are going to confound them to a system to where they will literally have to pay twice the amount of taxes to just the Federal Government than we do today. At a time when we are in tough competition and globalization with China and India, it is impossible to pretend that we are going to be able to enjoy this kind of standard of living if we are requiring our kids and our grandkids to pay double the amount of taxes they pay today to Washington when they are in our age bracket. It will just be fundamentally irresponsible if this is the future we would confine them to, yet that is exactly the trajectory we are on today.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I just think that we have a different vision, and that vision is that we believe we can provide a system that gives us universal access to affordable health insurance for all Americans, where they and their physicians are the nucleus of the medical system. What the majority is offering is a bankrupting entitlement system, massive tax increases unprecedented, in addition to the largest tax increase in American history that they have already passed here on the floor this year, and more Washington-controlled bureaucratic health care, where bureaucrats, either HMO bureaucrats or government bureaucrats make the decisions in health care rather than patients and their physicians. We can come up with a system that is patient centered, where every American has access to affordable health insurance, where we have universal access to affordable health insurance throughout America. Or that person who has a risky health care profile, may be overweight and has diabetes, has a history of cancer in the family, we can come up with a system where that person, too, can get affordable health insurance and get access to it without having the government run the entire system, without have to go through a government or an HMO bureaucrat to make decisions on how you get your care. You ought to be able to go to your doctor and come up with a good treatment plan that works for you, and that is where the decisions ought to be made. And more important to that, all the health care providers, the hospitals, the physicians, all those who are in charge of providing care in the health care system will compete against each other for the consumers and the patients' business. That is the vision we see, where everybody has access to affordable health care and it is a patient- centered system, not a government-driven, government-run, bureaucratically controlled system. And I just thank the gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman from New Jersey for taking this time to address this incredibly important issue.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At 400 percent?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. So in the bill that's coming to the House which takes SCHIP to have government, Washington-controlled, bureaucratic health care, for all children at 400 percent poverty, those families, 89 percent of those family already have health insurance. We are talking about having the government step in, raising taxes on taxpayers, and having the government take over the provision of health care for a group of families, 89 percent of whom right now have private health insurance?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. So just to expand on this point a little bit further, we have here a situation where 89 percent of the children in these families are already covered by private health insurance that their parents had purchased, that their parents and employers probably had provided them. So what we are proposing here in this bill is that we raise taxes on the American taxpayers, and that we pay for government-controlled health care to replace that health insurance that they already have.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. So we are going to pay for a system that we already have coverage of so that we can raise taxes and have the government control their health care system. That is a system, that is a sense of priorities that just doesn't square with the American people that I know. That is not what people in Wisconsin sent me to Congress to do. I don't believe the American people, if they really know the truth and the facts surrounding this issue, want to see their taxes raised so that Washington controls the health care for all of these families, for all of these children, especially when they already have health care provided to them. I think people understand that if we truly have uninsured poor children, that they ought to get health insurance. I think there is no disagreement here about making sure that uninsured low-income children receive health insurance. But talking about providing government-controlled health care to families that already have health insurance and raising taxes to do that, that just doesn't jive with the priorities of the American people and the American taxpayer, in my opinion.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. And if the gentleman will yield, so the blue portion, which is what we call discretionary, that is national defense, the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, Transportation, roads, bridges, the Pentagon, all of those things are the blue portion. There won't be any money left for those, Will there?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. All I would say is I think most Americans realize, if you're spending someone else's money, you are not going to be judicious with that money like you are with your own, and that is what we do here in government. And in health care, by asking Washington to spend our taxpayer dollars, they are not spending it like it's their own money. Think of what's happening in health care. In health care, they're spending someone else's money, our money, and they're spending it in a very irrational way, and it's giving us high health care costs. That is the basis of this third party payment system. And so by simply saying we're going to raise taxes to spend more money in Washington on health care in a system that takes control of health care out of the hands of the patient, him- or herself, is just wrong. I can't think of a more intimate and personal decision you experience in your life than making a decision over your own health care. Yet, they want more bureaucrats to make that decision than individuals. They want Washington to control this system. They want HMO bureaucrats to control this system and not the patient and their doctor. That is the real core of the issue here, who you trust. Do you trust Washington with your money to make personal decisions for you or do you trust individuals to make them for themselves? I would argue, and I think the evidence is clear, that when individuals make the decisions for themselves, when they're spending their own money, when they're talking to their doctor and making decisions on their own treatments, with affordable insurance, that the system's going to be far better, people are going to be much more satisfied, and we're going to save a lot more money and we'll have healthier outcomes. So it's a real difference in philosophy, and where we see competition working, prices go down and quality goes up, even in health care. I will just give one final conclusion. I used to have really bad eyes. I had 8.5 in this eye and 8.0 in this eye, which means you have really bad eyes, about 2800 vision. In the year 2000 after years and years of wearing contacts, I decided I'm going to get this LASIK surgery, and that LASIK surgery cost me $2,000 an eye for a total of $4,000 out-of-pocket discretionary spending in elective surgery. They used this Excimer Laser at the time, and it went very well. I can see your charts extremely well. I can even see the detail on your tie. You're standing about 20 feet away me, and the LASIK worked well. Well, what is LASIK procedure now in the year 2007 where it was in the year 2000? It costs $800 an eye at the same place, and they've revolutionized this procedure, revolutionized this Excimer Laser they use four times over. So the procedure is much better in quality, it's much better in recovery, and it costs $800 an eye instead of $2,000 an eye. $1,600 instead of $4,000 seven years ago. Better quality, lower price, because of competition. So, even in health care, with complicated things like eye surgery, you can see where competition is allowed to work, is allowed to flourish, that good results can occur, and that is the way out of this. That is the way forward, and that is the lesson that we need to learn as we go through this, instead of raising taxes on Americans and having more Washington-controlled bureaucratic health care, which has given us this double digit inflation on health care. And with that, I'd be happy to just yield back to the gentleman, and I thank him for including me this time debate.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I appreciate the Chair's indulgence and I will just take a moment to explain what this amendment does, and then I will yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, there is a recent troubling report entitled ``CDC Off Center,'' which was produced under the direction of Senator Coburn with a report in the Senate Government Affairs Committee. Instead of using its resources to fight life-threatening diseases like HIV/AIDS and cancer, the CDC has instead spent money on needless luxury items and nongovernment functions. For example, the CDC's Office of Health and Safety recently provided its employees with a new, extravagant fitness center that includes such items as rotating pastel ``mood'' lights, zero-gravity chairs, and $30,000 dry-heat saunas. The CDC has also spent over $1.7 million on a ``Hollywood liaison'' to advise TV shows like ``E.R.'' and ``House'' on medical information included in their programming, clearly an expense that should have been covered by the successful for-profit television shows, not by our hard-earned tax dollars. They also further squandered taxpayer dollars in an office intended to help improve employee morale. This program, which currently costs $250,000 per year, has yielded just 98 complaints since it was created last year. At this rate it is costing taxpayers about $3,000 per complaint. Despite the program's lack of use, the CDC is planning to spend at least $1 million more to expand it. In a time when we are facing increasing risk of bioterrorism and disease, these are hardly the best use of taxpayer dollars. My amendment simply would ensure that the CDC would not be able to spend any more Federal funding on these three boondoggles described above. And it is my hope that we can get the CDC focused on doing its job, which is very important and they do a good job on that, and not on these kinds of boondoggles. This report shows dozen of examples of these abuses. And I appreciate the Chair for his indulgence and the acceptance of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Yes. I will just explain the amendment and then I would be happy to yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the ranking member for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the student aid bill that passed out of the Committee on Education and Labor is nothing but a Trojan Horse for new spending. In fact, the bill creates nine, count it, nine new entitlement programs and abuses the protection of reconciliation procedures through token budgetary ``savings.'' It also favors the government-controlled and costly direct lending program over the nonprofit and commercial lenders, promoting a back-door expansion of taxpayer-financed student support and a substantial increase in taxpayer liability. I want to make four basic points, Mr. Speaker: Number one, budget experts have unequivocally warned Congress, experts from the left and from the right and center and everywhere else, that the unrestrained growth in entitlement spending programs is the most fundamental challenge and the largest threat to our Nation's long-term economic health. Comptroller General David Walker refers to the rising costs of entitlements as a ``fiscal cancer'' that threatens ``catastrophic consequences for our country'' and could ``bankrupt America.'' Despite all of these warnings, the majority not only failed to address the problem in their budget; they are choosing to make the problem even worse by creating nine new entitlement programs in this bill alone. That is nine new entitlement programs and nothing, not a zilch, of reforms. They're not expanding. They're not replacing. They are creating nine new entitlement programs. While the bill claims that some of these programs will sunset, we all know entitlement programs, once created, never die. Second, this creates a new mandatory Pell Grant program. Among the new entitlement programs created is an unprecedented mandatory Pell Grant. The Pell grant is a great program, and under Republican leadership, we saw a tripling of Pell Grants from the year 1996 to 2006. Suddenly, this authorizing committee doesn't think that it is enough, and it is planning on taking the committee away from the appropriators into their jurisdiction, making an entitlement which, in my opinion, reduces congressional oversight. Third, this contains no meaningful reform whatsoever. The bill contains none at all. It represents business as usual for existing programs, except that interest rates and limits in existing programs are changed to make room for more spending. Rather than maybe putting the savings in special education or deficit reduction to fund an unfunded mandate in local schools or reducing our deficit, it creates all of these new programs and this new spending. They will add from $15 billion to $32 billion in spending over the next 5 years alone on top of the already unsustainable entitlement costs we are facing today. Instead of reducing long-term spending, they are using a vehicle originally intended to limit spending to do just the opposite, to fund these new programs. This bill gets Fast-Track legislation under the guise of deficit reduction, under the guise of controlling spending. Yet what we see here today is a bill that takes $18.58 billion from student loan providers only to spend more than $17.13 billion on new entitlement programs. The savings of this bill is 9 percent, a net savings of 9 percent. Look at these two bars on the chart next to me. Does it look like the savings are anywhere near the new spending level, or does it look like a sliver of savings is being used to abuse the process of expedited reconciliation protection so they can create all of these new programs? I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee that would have required that the bulk of these savings be going toward deficit reduction. It is the same amendment that Senator Kent Conrad, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, offered and was passed by unanimous consent on the Senate floor. I couldn't even get this amendment past the Rules Committee, much less on the floor of the House. There is one last point, Mr. Speaker, that bears repeating, and that is, this favors government over markets. It increases taxpayer liabilities. It favors a government-controlled and costly direct lending program over nonprofit and commercial lenders, promoting a back-door expansion of taxpayer-financed student support. As students are pushed toward the government monopoly, the student benefits and services provided by nongovernment lenders to attract business would be lost. Further, the government-run program only handles 20 percent of the loans today. It would be overwhelmed with the new business and shut done, as it has been in the past, when large volumes shifted to the program. I just want to finish with one quote from the Democrat chairman of the Budget Committee: ``The reconciliation instruction that led to this bill'' we are seeing here today is a ``stalking horse for a significant expansion of spending.'' Please join me in opposing this back-door expansion of new entitlement spending. Let's use budget reconciliation for what it was made for, reducing the deficit and controlling spending, rather than creating nine new entitlements.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and the next couple of amendments. Just as the gentleman said, I would like to ask the gentleman from Ohio a quick question: Does this amendment propose that this bill spend less money this year than it spent last year?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, we hear this word ``cut'' all the time. Cut. Cut. Cut. Only here in Congress, only here in Washington is spending the same amount of money this year as we spent last year a deep horrible, awful, disastrous cut. We are proposing to spend almost 10 percent more next year. How many family budgets went up by this much money, an 8.9 percent increase? How much did wages go up this year? How much did pay raises go up? Did they go up 8.9 percent for most families this year from last year? No. So why should we be giving government such a huge pay raise? What we are doing by doing this is we are taking more money away from the paychecks of working men and women to give government a bigger paycheck, to give government a bigger pay raise. Mr. Chairman, what this is about is about trying to bring discipline to the way we spend taxpayer dollars. The budget we are operating under today contains within it the largest tax increase in American history. The budget we are operating on today says that all those tax cuts that expire at the end of the decade, we want them to expire. And do you know what? We are going to start spending that money now. So the reason this amendment is important, and other amendments like this are important, is we are trying to reduce the spending appetite of government, of Washington, so we can make sure that we don't raise those taxes. Because if the incumbent budget resolution actually fulfills its promise, this money will get spent and those taxes will get raised. That is what this is about. It is different approaches, different philosophies. We don't believe in all these huge increases: triple the rate of inflation, triple the rate of our constituents' ability to pay their taxes. We believe government should live within its means. Let me be the first to say that both parties have done a lousy job of keeping track of this over the years. Both parties have some of the blame to share. But in the last couple of years, this party, which is now in the minority, did do a better job of holding the line on domestic spending. This party did take on entitlements. This party did stand against tax increases. So, Mr. Chairman, you see here an emerging difference between whether or not we ought to have the largest tax increase in history and whether or not we ought to be increasing spending, and not at the rate of inflation, not at twice the rate of inflation, but at three times the rate of inflation. I am pleased that this committee allocation is under the President's request. I wish all the subcommittee allocations were underneath the President's request, including the Defense.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, last week, Kenosha, Wisconsin, lost a longtime community leader--Joseph Torcaso, who has run Torcaso Shoe Repair shop on 52nd Street for over 60 years. A lifelong resident of Kenosha, he started learning the shoe repair business from his father in 1937, at the age of 9, and his shop is one of the touchstones of the Kenosha community. Joe passed away on Friday. Everyone knew and liked Joe, and his lively wit and sense of humor brightened countless people's lives. He was known as the ``Mayor of 52nd Street'' or, by some, as the ``Oracle of 52nd Street'' for his knack at forecasting political victors. More than just an exceptionally skilled craftsman and a small business owner, Joe was a man of great character. He helped give Kenosha its strong sense of community, and the city will sorely miss this devoted family man and friend who lifted so many customers' spirits. Joe was also a great friend of mine, and I will miss him deeply. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife, children, and grandchildren during this difficult time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the Dent amendment concerning off-reservation casino applications. Two proposals are currently under consideration in southern Wisconsin on which I have taken a neutral position. Voting in affirmative on this amendment would violate my position of neutrality. Therefore, I will vote no and remain neutral on these pending applications.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I, along with Congressman Artur Davis and Congressman Joseph Crowley, introduce today the Generating Retirement Ownership Through Long-Term Holding (``GROWTH'') Act of 2007. This important bill gained the bipartisan support of 73 House colleagues in the 109th Congress. We introduce this important legislation in an effort to address one of the issues making it difficult for today's working investors to save for retirement. Most of our Nation's mutual fund shareholders report that retirement is the primary purpose for which they are saving. More than 31 million American households are saving through taxable mutual funds, either to realize a greater return on their savings, to supplement their employers' retirement plans, or because they do not have access to such plans. Seventy-two percent of fund investors say that their primary goal is to save for retirement. At the same time, almost half about 75 million of 155 million workers--are not offered any form of pension or retirement savings plan at work. Mutual fund investors are overwhelmingly middle-income Americans investing for the long term. For many of these investors, mutual funds are the low-cost, professionally managed, diversified way in which they are saving on their own for retirement. Currently, investors who buy shares in a mutual fund and hold for the long term find themselves taxed as they go--even though no fund shares were sold and no income was received. This legislation allows mutual fund shareholders to keep more of their own money working for them longer by deferring capital gains taxes until they actually sell their investment. The ``GROWTH'' Act makes it easier for these individuals to meet their goals and enjoy a secure retirement. Those investors who opt in advance to leave capital gains generated by the fund manager reinvested in the fund are doing what so many of us want to see--they are holding for the long term, contributing to national savings, and building up their own retirement nest egg. The GROWTH Act will encourage Americans to save more and to save for the long term to better prepare for a secure retirement. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort and cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I wish to speak in support of the Westmoreland amendment. I think it does a good job of bringing spending to more reasonable levels. But I would like to speak about the broader issue. Not only does this particular appropriation bill increase spending by $1.1 billion above the President's request, which is in excess of last year by double the rate of inflation, it is part of a broader appropriations effort to spend $23 billion above the President's request and 9 percent increase from this year versus last year, triple the rate of inflation. Here is the problem with all these bills that spend all this extra money: This puts the taxpayer on a collision course with higher taxes. Because the budget resolution which we are now operating under leads to the largest tax increase in American history, by passing these large appropriations bills, $23 billion above the President's request, it puts us on a course for higher taxes. Why is this a bad thing, Mr. Chairman? The reason this is such a bad thing is because these tax cuts, the tax relief gave us the economic prosperity we are enjoying today. It gave us the higher economic revenues that give us the ability to lower the deficit. When we saw this problem in the economy in 2001 and 2003, consider all those problems America was facing, the Enron scandals, the dot-com bubble had burst, 9/11 happened, and we went into a recession. What did Congress do at that time? Congress moved aggressively and swiftly to cut taxes, to cut tax rates on entrepreneurs, on small businesses, on corporations investing back in their businesses, on families and on taxpayers and working families. What happened after that? Well, we created 7.9 million new jobs. Think of the fact that the eight quarters before tax cuts occurred, we had eight quarters of negative business investment. After that, we have had unprecedented business investment. Think of the fact that we have averaged a job loss of 219,000 jobs per month before those tax cuts and now we are averaging almost 165,000 new jobs per month since those tax cuts. Think of the fact, Mr. Chairman, that when the Enron bubble came and the dot-com bubble burst, people lost a lot of their savings when the market went down. Well, now the market is at an all-time high, and it is because of these tax cuts. And so when we bring bills to the floor that promise all of this new spending, when we bring bills to the floor that spend $23 billion above the President's request, when we pass a budget that proposes 23 new slush funds to spend 190 billion more dollars in spending on top of those tax increases, this is a recipe for higher taxes. So, you see, Mr. Chairman, what is coming through here on the floor, bill after bill, appropriation bill after appropriation bill, is more spending, higher spending, which leads to higher taxes. The fact is in just the month of July, this majority is proposing to bring two reserve funds that will alone promise to spend $70 billion, $20 billion in the farm bill and $50 billion on the SCHIP reauthorization. Where are they going to get that money from? Higher taxes. So it's important that amendments like the Westmoreland amendment pass so that we can bring restraint to our spending levels. It is important that we don't pass these bloated appropriation bills that spend two to three times the rate of inflation, because that's two to three times the rate of our taxpayers', our constituents', ability to pay for these bills. And when we go on this collision course with all this new spending, $110 billion of more spending this year alone in just discretionary spending versus last year, $190 billion in new spending proposals, in mandatory spending on these reserve funds, that puts the taxpayer on a collision course with higher taxes and that brings true this promise of the largest tax increase in American history which was passed by this majority in their budget resolution. That is why we should not be passing these overinflated appropriation bills, and that is why we should be voting ``aye'' in favor of this Westmoreland amendment.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Westmoreland amendment and in opposition of the underlying bill. Let's just review the numbers for a moment. This Energy and Water appropriation bill not only exceeds the President's request; it also increases spending by twice the rate of inflation. Under the Democrat budget resolution, nonemergency spending will increase by $81.4 billion compared to 2007, growing more than 9 percent, or triple the rate of inflation. That is triple the rate of our constituents', the American taxpayers', ability to pay for these bills. This is on top of the $6 billion that was already spent in the current year omnibus, and the $17 billion in non-war emergency spending that was added to the Iraq war supplemental. But with this particular bill, here are my concerns: number one, it further opens the spigot on new spending. This is $1.1 billion above the President's request and $1.3 billion above the 2007 enacted levels. Again, far in excess of the rate of inflation. Number two, it adds a lot of green for uncertain returns. The President requested $1.2 billion for renewable and energy efficiency under the Advanced Energy Initiative and the Reducing U.S. Dependence on Imported Energy Sources. This bill increases spending by 50 percent, yet it is extremely unclear whether this enormous boost in spending will actually do anything to achieve energy independence. This bill also exploits the Democrats' pre-funding maneuver. This was wrong when Republicans did it. It is wrong when Democrats do it. Both parties have been doing these pre-funding maneuvers. This is basically taking from next year's bill. I think the fact that they have already pre-funded $1.6 billion for FY 2008 Corps of Engineers spending frees up room under the cap so they can spend more money. So you have about a $1.8 billion smoke-and- mirrors pre-funding mechanism that allows them to spend even more money. That brings the total on top of the $1.3 billion to almost $3 billion over last year's enacted levels. Now, $3 billion in an almost $3 trillion budget, people ask why should it matter. Why should we talk about these things. Here is why, Mr. Chairman, this matters: it starts one step at a time. If you want to be fiscally conservative, if you want to be fiscally disciplined and watch the way we spend taxpayer dollars, we have to do it at every stage in the process. We will have to watch how we spend our taxpayer dollars. The big problem I have with this budget resolution that is guiding this process, the current budget resolution leads to the largest tax increase in American history. Why on Earth would we want to pass the largest tax increase in American history at a time when our economy needs more jobs? The tax cuts that occurred in 2003 created an unprecedented 7.9 million new jobs. It gave us 3 years of double-digit revenue growth, which helped us cut the deficit by more than 50 percent. And the key to reducing the deficit further is not increasing taxes or increasing spending. It is controlling spending. That is the different vision between our two parties. We believe we need to balance the budget. The Democrat budget, the Democratic Party budget, does that too. They propose a balanced budget as well. They propose a balanced budget at this level of taxing and spending, whereas we propose a balanced budget at this lower level of taxing and spending, because we fundamentally believe that people ought to be able to keep more of their own money in their own pocket. We don't measure success of a nation by measuring how much more money we spend in Washington. We measure success of a nation by how free people are in their own lives and how they have an ability to prosper and grow and how jobs and opportunities are being created in America. That is what we believe measures success. So if we pass budgets that simply call for all this new spending, if we pass budgets which call for 23 reserve funds to spend $190 billion, in addition to what this budget right here does, what we are simply doing is saying we are going to tax people more, and then we are going to tax them more again, and we are going to spend that money. That takes freedom and liberty away from taxpayers, away from individuals. That starves prosperity in America; it doesn't preserve prosperity in America. And that is why at every stage in this appropriations process, at every stage in this budget process we have to be mindful on how much money we are spending. We are spending more than twice the rate of inflation in this bill. We are spending three times the rate of inflation on all of these appropriations bills. And that is far too much, Mr. Chairman. That is why I urge passage of the Westmoreland amendment and defeat of the underlying bill.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. We believe you balance the budget by controlling spending, not raising taxes. And at the end of the day, this is what the differences are. The majority brought to the floor a bill and passed the largest tax increase in American history. They modified it to possibly reduce that to the second largest tax increase in American history. So what can they do? Raise more spending and raise taxes to balance the budget. We want to balance the budget at a much lower level of taxing and spending. We want more transparency in the process. We want to control Federal spending, and we want the American people to see exactly how their money is being spent so that their Representative can call these issues into question, not put the power in one man's hands here in Congress, which is the current proposal before us.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I appreciate that and I want to be fair and civil here. But this is a big issue, Mr. Chairman. It is not about delaying some bill. It is about bringing accountability and transparency back to the process in how we spend taxpayer dollars, and it is about not going back on your word, and that is what this majority is doing.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I want to talk about what my friend from California just mentioned. And I want to just simply say that I think that the gentleman from California is truly a gentleman, and I enjoy the time we've spent together. But there are just a few things I think need to be corrected. Number one, the gentleman mentioned that over the last 6 years, the Republicans, when they were in charge, squandered the opportunity, lost the credibility. Well, guess what? It's only taken 6 months for this majority, maybe 6 years for the former majority; 6 months, and this majority has turned their back on earmark reforms. Six months into the new majority, and this majority has turned this thing upside down. What do I mean when I say that, Mr. Chairman? Let me just quote our current Speaker, on December 14, 2006, ``We will bring transparency and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks, and we will give the American people the leadership they deserve.'' What happened? Well, a number of things happened. Under the Republican majority, earmarks got out of control. Under the Republican majority, waste occurred. Let me be the first one to say that. So what happened? In the last session, Republicans changed the rules. We said, if you're going to have an earmark, a pork-barrel project, Number one, we've got to see it. It's got to be in the bill. A Member has to have their name attached to it, so they have to defend it. But most importantly, the American people need to see this, and it needs to be in the bill as it comes to the House floor, as it goes to the Senate Chamber, so that the American people have time to look at it, so that transparency and sunlight can bring accountability to the process, and so that we, as the people's Representatives, each and every one of us, representing 670,459 people, can have judgment, can vote on it. That's transparency. That's accountability. It happened late in our majority, but it happened. What did the Democrats do as they took over the majority? To their credit, Mr. Chairman, they extended, enhanced and improved upon these rules. So I would, at this moment, like to give some bipartisan credit to the fact that we negotiated these earmark reforms in the last session, and Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats, to their credit, carried them over and made them better. Where are we 6 months later? Where are we 6 months into this new majority? We went three steps forward, and now we went six steps backwards. Mr. Chairman, what are we doing? No transparency, no earmarks in these bills, no opportunity for the American people, the public, to see what's in this legislation. All we have in these bills are big slush funds, a $5.9 billion slush fund in the bill that's coming up next, a $20 billion earmark slush fund in the bill coming after that. What does that mean? They're putting billions and billions of dollars of fiscal space of a general earmark in these bills, and they're simply saying, this money will be earmarked afterwards, when I, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee decide to put this money in to go toward pet projects, pet constituencies, at my choosing, at my scrutinizing, after Congress has the ability to consider these things on their own merits. Is that transparency? Is that accountability? Absolutely not, Mr. Chairman. They have gone backwards, back on their word, back from bringing transparency and accountability to Congress. So let me just say for the record, both parties have messed this up. Both majorities have seen the light, and this majority is going backwards on this. That is what this is all about. We recognize we've got to have more transparency and accountability in the way we spend taxpayer dollars. That's one of the problems we have. The other problem is this idea that we can just spend our way into prosperity, this idea that we can just spend more and more and more money, and all things wrong in America will be fixed. If only we take more money out of people's paychecks, bring them up here to Washington and spend their money, every problem can be solved. This is the problem we have at a basic philosophical level. Here is where we are just 6 months into this new majority. The President gave us a budget. His budget increased spending across all levels of government. His budget increased discretionary spending. Well, what happened since that budget came? Six billion new dollars in February in the omnibus appropriation. Then, just last month, $17 billion in new spending of unrelated, nonrequested spending in an emergency appropriation bill to go to funding the troops in Iraq, $17 billion that has nothing to do with Iraq. And now, $21 billion in more spending. $43 billion out the window, out the door in new spending in just 6 months. How do you balance the budget, Mr. Chairman? You balance it by controlling spending.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding. I want to say to the person who just spoke, who referenced me, that my motivation here is just to come and get more pork for myself. I know the gentleman's new here, but he doesn't know me, if that's what he said. He also mentioned that you want to make this system more democratic. We should be here fighting for good government and for democracy and fairness. Is giving one man in this body this power like Caesar, to decide whether or not earmarks go in and out of bills, democratic? Is that small D democratic? Is giving all the power to one chairman on how all 32,000 earmark requests in his power, is that democratic? Or should we have the ability, as Democrats and Republicans, in a small D democracy, the ability to vote on these things? Shouldn't the American people have the choice and the ability to see how their money is being spent? Or should we, in the name of good government, give the chairman of the Appropriations Committee sole discretion, sole decision-making power, on how tens of billions of dollars are spent on tens of thousands of projects? That's democracy? That's good government? That's fairness? I think not, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the idea that we should simply relegate our power, our voting cards, our ability to speak on behalf of our constituents, to one chairman of one committee to spend tens of billions of our taxpayers' hard-earned dollars on tens of thousands of projects, if we think that that is good government, that is fairness, that is what democracies do, that is not my opinion. That is not my value. That is not what I think democracy is all about. I believe we are here to fight for fairness, transparency, accountability. And what we are here to do is to make sure that our taxpayers dollars are spent wisely, that they are spent in a transparent way, that there is accountability in this system. Why on earth does each and every one of us want to delegate our lawmaking power and authority to one person to decide how our taxpayer dollars are spent is beyond me. But for those of you who say that our motivation is simply to get a bigger slice of the pie, to get more pork-barrel spending, that's just not the case. And I think that's insulting.