Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. It is asked, you know, why are we doing what we are doing, and why are these amendments coming to the floor, and why are these Members saying what they are saying? There is a big picture involved here, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to speak to that. Number one, this isn't just about increasing spending in one particular program or one pet project, this is about the now majority increasing spending everywhere, on virtually every program and virtually every pet project at almost every opportunity. Six months into the new majority, $6 billion on the omnibus appropriations, $17 billion in non-war-related emergency spending supplemental, $21 billion more on top of discretionary spending above the level at which we realize the veto threat is going to occur. Each of these appropriation bills is representing an installment on a plan to increase nonemergency spending by more than $81 billion over last year. That is a spending increase of 9 percent, three times the rate of inflation. Now, I will be the first to acknowledge that when our party was in the majority, we made similar mistakes. We made similar big spending increases. I recall my first term in 2000, coming at the end of the Clinton administration, an 11 percent increase in discretionary spending. That got built into the base, and what happened? Our budgets got thrown through the loop forever. We went into deficit. It was a big mistake at the time, that we should not have done that. But there are four specific problems I have with this particular bill before us, Mr. Chairman, which the gentleman from Iowa's amendment does some things to help fix. First, the President's budget called for an increase of 7.2 percent. This budget calls for an increase of 14 percent. So it raises the ante. So, instead of doubling the spending at the rate of inflation, we're going four times the rate of inflation on this bill. Number two, this bill takes advantage of prefunding. They have already used the 2007 war supplemental to prefund over $1 billion in fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security appropriations. That lets us free up the cap for more spending. So, it's really more than a 14 percent increase from one year to the next. Third, and this is my biggest concern, Mr. Chairman, earmark transparency. We have come a long ways on earmarks. The former majority party made mistakes on earmarks. Let me say this one more time. Republicans made mistakes on earmarks. And good thing Republicans, last session, began fixing those mistakes. Last session we brought to the floor and passed in the rules new earmark transparency rules, new earmark accountability rules, giving the public the ability to see the earmarks, see who the author is, and giving Members of Congress, there as the people's representatives, the ability to come to the floor and challenge those earmarks. To the Democratic Party credit, they extended those earmark reforms. And you know what, Mr. Chairman? They built upon them. They improved upon those earmark reforms. The Democrat majority improved upon the Republican earmark reforms when they came into power at the beginning of this year. Where are we now? What has happened? We went three steps forward, and now we went six steps back, Mr. Chairman. Now, in instead of giving the public the ability to see these earmarks, instead of giving Members of Congress, the people's representatives, the ability to challenge them, to vote on them, to have scrutiny on them while we consider these appropriation bills, what are we doing? They are air-dropping them in the conference report. Okay. What did that just mean for those people who don't know our lingo? This means we're not going to see the earmarks while we are considering this legislation as they go through the House and the other body, the Senate. They will be conveniently put in the bill at the end of the process so that no amendment can address the issue, so that the public will have very little time to see these earmarks, so that no Member of Congress can challenge the worthiness of a pet project. When we have come to the time where Congress is putting in thousands and thousands and thousands of these earmarks, raking up to tens of millions of dollars, one of the bills we are going to consider this week has something like $20 billion slated for earmarks in just one bill. No vote, just $20 billion, empty money to be spoken for, later inserted in the conference report by a couple of people in the majority, namely the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the dean of my delegation. No transparency, no public accountability, no ability for the people, Representatives, to come to the floor and challenge these earmarks. That is not earmark reform, Mr. Chairman. We need real earmark reform. Let's not go backwards. And what is worse about all of this is, these bills are coming in far above where they ought to be from a funding level. We are going to have a veto at the end of the year and a train wreck.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to the life of Randy Prideaux, a civic-minded business leader and longtime resident of Union Grove, Wisconsin whose energetic commitment to his community touched countless lives. Randy died unexpectedly last week, sending waves of shock and sorrow through Southeastern Wisconsin, where he was well-known through his business and civic leadership. Randy worked his way up the ladder at Union Grove Lumber over nearly 40 years to become CEO of this local lumber and hardware business. He also served as a member of my Small Business Advisory Board, and I am grateful that he took the time to share his expertise with us. He knew the challenges that small business owners face day in and day out, and his insights on issues from health care to tax policies were very helpful. If there was one thing you could always count on, it was that Randy would tell you what he truly thought, whether he agreed or disagreed with you. His candor and his dedication to doing what is right for Union Grove will be sorely missed. Besides working to strengthen the community as an employer and businessman, Randy gave back in many other ways. Altogether, he served 20 years on the Village Board. He was active in the Union Grove Lions Club and had served two terms as president. He also served two terms as president of the Chamber of Commerce. In his personal life, Randy was a devoted family man, who recently became a grandfather. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife, children, granddaughter, mother, and brother, and the many friends throughout Wisconsin who mourn his loss.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, Southeastern Wisconsin lost a truly dedicated teacher last week--Tom Kossoris, who taught at Mukwonago High School over the past three decades. He passed away after a lengthy battle with illness brought on by a brain tumor. I would like to take a moment to honor his memory and reflect on the lessons he passed along to his students and others who knew him. Tom taught history, political science and economics. He demanded a lot from his students--setting high standards that challenged them to excel. In an account that appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, his fellow teacher, Bruce Lammers put it well, saying: ``Tom taught me to have students meet your expectations. Challenge the kids academically, and the kids rise to your standards.'' Tom combined this toughness with a dry sense of humor and an unfailing commitment to his students' education. Every year, Tom brought students to Washington to enhance and expand on what they had learned--showing them their government in action, as well as the site of so many watersheds and debates over the course of our nation's history. I could count on hearing from Tom, who would ask for assistance with getting tours of the Capitol or other opportunities to make his students' trip memorable. He held himself to the same high standards he expected of others--working tirelessly to make sure students got the most out of their experience in Washington. Over the years he retained a love of teaching, as well as an intellectual energy and enthusiasm that he passed on to others. On top of his other teaching duties, Tom became a driver's education instructor, giving lessons before school on weekdays and on Saturdays. His sharp mind, his wit, and his determination to bring out the best in students will be greatly missed by the whole community.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of our time to the distinguished minority leader, Mr. Boehner.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, let's just be really clear. You are hearing this debate about taxes. Nowhere is the difference between the two parties ever clear than it is right now. We brought a budget to the floor that not only did not raise taxes, it kept taxes low, and it reduced spending, and it balanced the budget, and it finally stopped the raid of the Social Security Trust Fund. That's what we proposed. We are not in the majority. Our view did not prevail. The Democrat budget did prevail. What did that budget do? It passed the largest tax increase in American history. That's not what we say, that's what the Congressional Budget Office says, our scorekeepers. So what did they do in conference? They decided to accede to the Senate and have a slightly smaller tax increase. They started off with the red line, largest tax increase in American history as measured by the Congressional Budget Office. No matter what you say, the numbers in the budget just don't lie. Then they said, let's have a trigger. If we don't spend too much money, and if the surplus is big enough in 2010, then maybe some taxpayers could get some tax relief, and we won't raise all of their taxes. We will extend the marriage penalty and the child tax credit, 10 percent bracket, but will all the other tax increases occur? So we will have the second highest tax increase in American history. That's what their proposal does. They simply cannot have it both ways. They cannot say there is no tax increase in this budget and then say we are preserving some of the tax cuts and not others. You can't have it both ways. Here is what this budget does. It puts us on a vicious cycle of taxing and spending. They start off by spending $24 billion, next year, brand new spending. Then they have a $217 billion tax increase. Then they have 23 reserve funds, 23 wish lists, which equal $190 billion in new spending. Then they have no entitlement reforms, which means our entitlement programs are going to grow and grow and grow at unsustainable rates. Guess what, $190 billion in wish lists, 23 new wish lists of spending. What do they get? If they get the spending, they get another $190 billion tax increase to pay for it, a vicious cycle of new spending. The trigger tax says we would like to give some people some tax relief, but if we continue to whet our appetite, taxpayers won't get it. All this trigger says is it puts the taxpayer at the back of the line and the government and spending at the front of line. We have a different core set of values. We believe the money that people make is their money, not the government's money. If you are making money, working hard and paying taxes, that's your money, not ours. We have a different set of beliefs. They believe the opposite. They believe that more and more and more money ought to come out of workers' paychecks. They believe that they can spend your money better than you can. That is not what we believe. The reason that we don't believe it is because if you have more money in your paycheck, you have more for yourself and more freedom for your family, we know, by golly, the American economy grows. We succeed. We improve in the global economy. We created 7 million new jobs since this last run of tax cuts. We increased revenues to the Federal Government from these lower tax raises, 3 years in a row, double digit revenue growth. Let's not turn that recipe upside down. Let's not ruin a good thing. Defeat this budget.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chief minority whip from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina, is he the last speaker on their side? You are reserving the right to close?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished minority whip, Mr. Blunt.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, what we have just learned is that if a Member votes for this conference report, and it is adopted by the Senate, then they will be recorded as having voted for the joint resolution raising the public debt limit to $9.815 trillion, an increase in the public debt of borrowing of $850 billion. If a Member votes against this conference report, and it is adopted by the Senate, then they will not be recorded as having voted to increase the debt limit or borrowing by $850 billion. So it's very clear that the passage of this budget increases borrowing by $850 billion and that is, in fact, the effect of this. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, by operation of this rule, will the vote by which the conference report is passed by the House be considered the vote on passage of the joint resolution adjusting the debt limit?

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Will there be a separate vote in the House on passing this joint resolution adjusting upwards the debt limit?

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Am I further correct, that by operation of rule XXVII, upon adoption of this conference report by both the House and the Senate, this joint resolution adjusting the debt limit will be considered as passed by the House and transmitted to the Senate?

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that pursuant to rule XXVII of the rules of the House, upon adoption of the conference report by both the House and the Senate, the Clerk of the House will be instructed to prepare a joint resolution adjusting the public debt limit; is that correct?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, given the stated concerns about borrowing by the majority, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds simply to say that's correct, the majority did make choices. They chose to raise taxes, they chose to raise spending, and they chose to violate their own PAYGO rules. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).