Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. That is the cash surplus, plus interest. We are talking about the cash surplus.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on either side.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Hensarling from Texas.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield myself 30 seconds. I say to my articulate friend from New Jersey, I think what he mentioned was a real good highlight on the philosophical differences between our two parties. The question is, who is first in line, the taxpayer or the government? We believe that the taxpayer ought to be first in line by keeping more of their hard-earned money, not the government. The State of New Jersey, which is a high tax-paying State, on average under these tax increases will pay an average of $3,780 more under Democrat-passed budget per taxpayer in the State of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the vice ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Barrett from South Carolina.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I can't speak to that number. I don't know that number off the top of my head.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Yes.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Yes.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. If the gentleman will yield, not only did the Republican budget substitute accommodate for that, it accommodated for an extension of all of the tax cuts that expire in 2010 in addition to having a surplus equal to or greater than the unified Social Security cash surplus. So the Republican budget substitute accommodated all of these tax cuts and stopped the raid on Social Security.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. The gentleman's budget resolution that passed the House had, I think, about a $150 billion cash surplus and raised all those taxes; so he had a sizable surplus.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I don't know off the top of my head.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. A $96 billion cash surplus unified budget after the extension of those taxes.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. This assumes a $96 billion unified budget surplus after those tax cuts are extended.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the motion we are offering today reflects a very simple up or down choice: One, rejecting the largest tax increase in our Nation's history, which is contained in the House budget; two, insisting on the lowest possible level of taxes available in the budget conference; and three, stopping the raid on Social Security's cash surpluses. Both the House and the Senate Democrat budgets call for historic tax increases, and we in the minority can't do anything to prevent that. But we hope that, with this vote, we can at least minimize the damage that these tax hikes will bring. Let me take a moment to describe the options that we have to work with as a minority. The House-passed budget would impose a tax hike of $392 billion from such things as reimposing the tax penalty on married couples, cutting in half the child tax credit, and raising marginal income tax rates on low- and middle-income working families. This would increase the average family's tax bill by roughly $2,900 a year and likely reverse the economic progress we have achieved over the past few years. So, right along with their higher tax bill, Americans would see fewer jobs and slower wage growth. This massive tax increase was the only way the House Democrats could accomplish their massive increase in spending. Their budget makes no effort, none, to moderate the growth of spending. It simply requires taxpayers to send more of their money to make the Democrats' budget numbers add up. In our debate a few weeks ago, the Democrats tried gamely to assert that their budget doesn't increase taxes after all. And as proof, they pointed to the novel policy language that claims that they will extend some of the tax relief provisions enacted in 2001 and 2003. They have these reserve funds that say they don't really want to raise taxes. But if you read the fine print, this would only happen later and only if they hike some other taxes by the same amount. So even with the flowery reserve fund language, the goal, the preference of not raising taxes can only be met if they raise taxes. But the numbers in this budget tell a very different story. By the numbers, which is what a budget is all about, the House budget raises taxes nearly $400 billion, and numbers do not lie. The other option is the Senate budget, which raises taxes by about $216 billion, the second largest tax increase in American history. This will include higher taxes on middle-income earners because the Senate budget still raises marginal income tax rates across the board. But at least it attempts to protect the marriage penalty relief, child tax credit and estate tax relief. Unfortunately, the other Chamber, like their Democrat counterparts in the House, also call for large spending increases. And as a consequence, their budget will continue to raid the Social Security trust funds in fiscal year 2012, something the House-passed budget and the Republican substitute did not do. So while the Democrat budget in the Senate didn't raise as many taxes, it did raid the Social Security trust fund, and the House Republican and the House Democrat budget resolution did not. So, what we are simply trying to do is get the best of both products such that it can be had. Accordingly, our motion would simply direct the conferees to do two things: First, reject the House's $392 billion tax increase, again, the largest tax increase in American history, and keep their tax hike to the lowest possible level permitted under the rules. Second, insist on the lowest possible level of taxes between the House-passed and Senate-passed Democrat budgets. This language is included because the motion is required to stay within the scope of the two budgets. We wish we could do more, but this is the scope we have been dealt. Third, it would direct the conferees to stop raiding Social Security for the government's operating budget. They should do this by running a unified surplus, including Social Security, of $96 billion in fiscal year 2012, which is equal to the Social Security cash surplus for that year. We know that this is possible because we proved it could be done in our own budget. Our Republican budget not only balanced the budget without raising anyone's taxes, we ran a surplus that ensured the Social Security trust funds would not be raided. So, again, today we are simply asking our Democratic colleagues to do the following: one, reject the largest tax increase in American history; and two, stop the raid of the Social Security cash surplus. This is a simple choice. A ``yes'' vote supports these objectives. A ``no'' vote rejects them. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I would love to work on a bipartisan basis to put discretionary caps in place. I would be delighted to work with the chairman of the Budget Committee to put discretionary spending caps in place. Is that something that you would be willing to work with us on?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. May I make an entreaty to the chairman?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Why doesn't the gentleman's PAYGO apply to discretionary spending? Why doesn't the gentleman's PAYGO apply to current Federal spending?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. The question I have for the chairman is, if we're not going to fix these entitlements in the budget, then where are we going to fix them? If we don't put it in the Federal budget, then how do you get it done? If you don't have reconciliation protection to do entitlement reform, then when are you ever going to do it? The 1997 bill that President Clinton passed through on a bipartisan basis was reconciliation.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. The President's numbers on the 10-year? I think they are probably correct; I have no reason to dispute them. But remember, Medicare spending goes up every year and thereon after under either of these budgets.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. No. It increased Medicare spending. It just didn't increase it as fast as it is projected to grow at this time.