Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of rebuttal, I yield myself 1 minute. I think we may set a record today on the floor on charts. But, first, let me say, if you really don't want to raise taxes, if you are telling us that you have these words in your budget that says you don't want to raise taxes, you want middle-class tax relief, then why didn't you put it in your budget? The fact is, Mr. Chairman, we gave the Democrats ample opportunity to put it in their budget to make sure that these taxes wouldn't increase. We had amendments in the Budget Committee to prevent the increase on the marginal tax rates, to prevent the elimination of the $1,000 per child tax credit, to prevent the elimination of marriage penalty, cap gains, dividends, State and local tax, bring back the death tax. We had all these votes to say, let's make it clear in the numbers: Don't raise taxes. What happened? Party line vote after party line vote after party line votes, Democrats voted on every one of these amendments which put in the numbers the prevention of these tax increases. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, a member of the House Budget Committee, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important debate. It is an important debate about our priorities as a country. It is an important debate about how we run the fiscal ship of state, but it is more important than that. It is an important debate about our future. I related a story the other day in committee that I want to share again with my colleagues. When I first ran for Congress in 1998, I was a 28-year-old young guy, single, no children. I remember at a Kiwanis Pancake Day, we have a lot of pancake days in Wisconsin. It is how we raise money for charities. I remember going up to a woman in line, not much older than me, and she had three little children. I asked her for her vote. I asked her to support me in my race for Congress. She said something to me. She said, I do not think I am going to vote for you. I said, well, why not? She said, because I do not think you can relate to me. I said, well, why can I not relate to you? She said, because you do not have children and you do not know what it is like to have children; you do not know what it is like to think about their futures. I said, well, I was in a family. I know what it is like to be in a family. And you know, I did not understand what she was saying to me at the time. You know what? Now that I have a 5-year-old daughter, a 3-year-old son and a 2-year-old son, I understand exactly what that woman was telling me. I understand exactly what it feels like to really, really, really care about the next generation. It is like your heart is walking around in someone else's body. I can only imagine what grandparents feel like. So this debate is about numbers. It is about priorities, how much for the Pentagon and how much for veterans and how much for this program and that program. But it is also about what is that horizon we are looking for, what is that vision on the horizon and what are we doing for our kids and our grandkids? What legacy are we putting in place for our country? The great, beautiful thing about America, the American Dream is that one generation leaves a better standard of living for the next generation. That was drilled into me by my parents, that they were working and thriving so that we would have a better life than they had. That is what our job in Congress is to do. We have big challenges and our country has faced big ones before, the Great Depression, World War I, World War II, the Cold War. We have got three challenges right now hitting us simultaneously, the global war on terror, globalization, and this entitlement explosion, the retirement of the baby boomer generation which we are not prepared for. This budget is about all of those things, but let me talk about two of them. Globalization: We have got new kinds of competitive pressures against us unlike that which we have ever seen before. No longer do the oceans separate us from competitive pressures. We have broadband and digital technology. We have competition from countries like China and India unlike any we have ever seen before, and it is something we have to respond to so that our kids and our grandkids can have that higher standard of living. At the same time, we have got entitlement programs that are exploding before us. We have an enormous debt on our horizon that we have to address. Now, you heard this talk about taxes, tax increases. This budget does unequivocally raise taxes. I will not belabor that point. Let me show you three lines. The lower line here, the blue line, shows you what revenues would look like if we kept those tax cuts permanent. That is what our budget will propose to do. Do not raise taxes, keep the marriage penalty down, keep the kid credit where it is, keep income tax rates where they are, get rid of the death tax, do not raise taxes. That is the blue line. The red line right here shows you what happens if we let the tax cuts expire as this budget proposes to do if you increase taxes. It shows you a $400 billion tax increase. What really matters here is not the red and the blue line at the end of the day for our children and grandchildren, matters a lot, but at the end of the day what matters is the green line, the spending line. This is the line that is occurring right now under our watch. This is the spending trajectory of the Federal Government because of Republicans and Democrats, both of us. We are all in this thing together. This is the line that happens. So if you do not address the spending, you are not addressing the real problem. That is why I really have a big problem with this budget. Not only does it have the largest tax increase in history, not only does it raise taxes about $400 billion, it does nothing to control spending. It does not reform our entitlement programs. If you want these entitlement programs to succeed, to exist, to continue, you have to reform them. Let me show you one more chart. This is the Government Accountability Office. This shows you the trajectory we are on when you take a look at Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, interest on the debt, when you take a look at all the discretionary spending. It shows you this: By the year 2040, that is when my kids will be exactly my age, by the year 2040, our Federal Government will be doubled in size. Let me put it another way. If we want to have no new programs whatsoever, keep today's government in place, no fewer programs, no more programs, just today's Federal Government, the cost of that Federal Government when my kids are my age will be double what it costs today. Let us put it another way. We have historically run our government, the Federal Government, by taxing about 18 percent of GDP to fund the Federal Government. Since about 1960, the Federal Government has had to tax the American people at about 18 percent of the economy and its output to fund the Federal Government. When my kids are my age, to fund today's Federal Government at that time it will require us to tax 40 percent of GDP. We will literally have to tax our kids at twice the rate we are taxing ourselves today if we do nothing to reform spending and reform these entitlements. You cannot survive globalization if you are going to double the tax rates on every man, woman and child in America at that time. We cannot win when we are competing against the likes of China and India if we are going to crank taxes up like that. So the real problem with this budget is not what it contains, the largest tax increase in American history. The even larger problem with this budget is that it contains no reforms. It contains no spending control. It includes immense new spending. You have 12 of these reserve funds which are worth less than this piece of paper. They do not pay for anything, but the one thing they do say is we want to spend $115 billion in more money. We do not have the money for it, but if we can have the money for it, we would do it. The other reserve funds say we do not want these taxes to go up, but we are planning on having them go up. We would stop them going up if we had money to do it, but we really are not stopping these tax increases. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say you are going to balance the budget and not control spending without raising taxes. In order for your budget to balance, in order for the Democrat budget to balance, Mr. Chairman, they have to raise taxes, especially since they are not only not controlling spending, they are increasing spending. That is the way mathematics works. But more important than all of this, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that we have to get our kids and our country ready to compete in the global economy. We are not prepared for that. We have got to do more to help them compete, and we do not do it by doubling their taxes. We tax our country, our businesses and our capital more than any other country in the industrialized world except for Japan, and they just finished two decades of recession. We can't tax our way out of this problem. We will tax ourselves out of being the leading economic superpower. We will tax ourselves out of a good standard of living. If we don't tackle this problem, we will have severed that American Dream, that American legacy, that legacy that says each generation should leave on to the next a better country, a better standard of living. That is what is really wrong with this budget. We can't keep spending or taxing our way out of these problems. If this budget achieves balance on paper, which I will clearly, freely admit that it does, it will only do so for a short period of time. Because if you don't fix these entitlement programs, it will drive us that much deeper into debt, that much more in the deficit, just around the corner. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are the big three entitlements. They are very important programs. Health care for low income, health care for people in old age, retirement security. We all agree with that. We think that is the right thing. But you have got to reform these programs if you are going to save these programs. You have got to reform these programs if people are truly going to be able to count on these benefits. Because if you don't reform these programs, you are driving the debt even higher. You are driving taxes up on our kids and grandkids even more. Not only will we not have programs to depend on for our livelihood when we reach the age of 65, not only will we not be prepared for the baby boomers, we will hit our kids with the biggest tax burden this country has ever seen. We will lose our greatness, and we will not pass on this legacy of a better country and a higher standard of living to our children. I urge a ``no'' vote on this budget.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. As a representative from the State of Wisconsin, each of us represents about 670,000 people in our congressional districts, and in my home State of Wisconsin, the average tax increase on the average household in the State of Wisconsin will be $2,964, and this will hit 2,164,000 taxpayers. Numbers do not lie. The CBO certifies it. If we pass this budget and it comes into being, that is what will happen. Mr. Chairman, I think that is wrong. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, what I am saying, the red line shows all the tax increases kicking in and hitting American taxpayers. That is the line that the Democrats are using to run their budget, to balance their budget, to pay for their new spending. You can use any word you want, you can't escape the fact that they are imposing, banking on, planning on, assuming, legislating the largest tax increase in American history. They want to smoke screen it with reserve funds and cute language. The fact is the fact, and the fact is underlined by the Congressional Budget Office. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield to myself 1\1/2\ minutes. I want to go to the point that I mentioned a minute ago about who says what about what this budget does. Let me talk about the Congressional Budget Office. By law, that is what we use. Here is what the Congressional Budget Office says: The year 2010, all of these tax cuts expire. I think we all agree with that. All of these tax cuts expire in 2010. But we are talking about marriage penalty, per child tax credit, death tax, capital gains dividends, income tax rates across the board, they all go up. That is the red line. That red line shoots up because all of those taxes are increased. That is the line the Democrats are using to run their budget. That is the line the Democrats are using to finance their new spending. That's the line the Democrats are using to show that they get to a balanced budget. The green line, the dotted line, that is the CBO line that says here is what revenues will be if you extend the tax cuts. That's the line we are using in our budget. We are balancing the budget by controlling spending. So reserve fund, shmerve fund, that means nothing. What matters are the numbers. And the numbers, not by the Center For Budget and Policy Priorities, not by the Brookings Institution. The Congressional Budget Office. The Congressional Budget Office shows us very clearly, black and white in the numbers, in the numbers in your budget resolution. Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. The CBO says that their baseline, which the gentleman is using for his budget, if the tax cuts expire, the baseline goes up, that is what they are using. Let me put it another way. According to the Congressional Budget Office, their budget does not balance if they don't raise taxes. Their budget does balance, which they are claiming it does, by letting these tax cuts expire and raising taxes across the board. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to simply say, you can get every left-leaning think tank to say whatever you want, but the Congressional Budget Office is saying: This raises taxes. Plain and simple. We can reinvent new words and come up with new language. We can put reserve funds that are meaningless into the budget.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the Budget Committee, Mr. Hensarling from Texas.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I will yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is left on each side?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 12\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, first off, I would like to start off this debate by paying a compliment to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). The gentleman from South Carolina is just that. He is a gentleman. He is a good man, he is a man who has a tough job, and he is a man who I enjoy working with. The key to this year's budget debate is not whether Congress should balance the Federal budget. Republicans and Democrats this year are agreeing that we need to balance the Federal budget. The key is about how we are going to get there. Today, as this House debates both the Democrats' and the Republicans' budget proposals for fiscal year 2008, it will become clear that this is much more than a simple discussion about numbers and how they add up over the next few years. Instead, this is going to be a bigger debate about our different governing philosophies, about what kind of society we envision, about what kind of country we want to leave to future generations. The budget that the Democrats have proposed is true to their philosophy. I give them credit for that. They believe that more government is better government and that the best way to solve the myriad problems we face in this country is to spend more and more and to tax our people more and more to pay for that spending. The Democrats' budget reflects this philosophy by calling for the largest tax increase in American history. I will make this irrefutably clear throughout the course of this debate: They call for immense new spending and postponement of critical entitlement reforms for another 5 years. If Congress passes this budget tomorrow, this will enshrine the raising of taxes to the tune of $400 billion on the American family, worker and business. And we are not just talking about raising taxes on the rich, as they would like to have us believe. We are talking about raising taxes on every single American income tax payer. This means raising marginal income tax rates on all taxpayers; eliminating the 10 percent bracket that has benefited numerous low-income individuals; raising the tax on capital gains and dividends and discouraging investment in our economy and saving for our seniors; slashing the child tax credit in half; reinstating the marriage tax penalty; reimposing the death tax; and eliminating the State and sales tax deduction for States like Texas and Florida. Let me just show you where the lie is. It is not in the numbers. The lie is in the so-called reserve funds. They can give you all the words they want. They can say they put all these fancy words in this budget that says we don't want to raise taxes, we want this new spending. But what a budget resolution is is a bunch of numbers, and numbers don't lie, Mr. Chairman. This budget requires, banks on, plans for, assumes, insists upon the largest tax increase in American history. Otherwise, they don't balance the budget. So my friends on the other side of the aisle can have it one way or the other, but not both. They can say they are balancing the budget. But, according to their budget, they therefore have to raise taxes. Or they can say they are not raising taxes, at which hand they then are not balancing the budget. They can't have it both ways. The line, the red line, which is the revenue baseline, does not lie. Now, their revenue numbers show it. And they can bring in all the left-leaning think tanks that have been in favor of tax increases in the past and in the present to say that this isn't a tax increase, but come December 10, January 31, that is the last day people have a $1,000 tax credit. It is the last day married couples won't be taxed for being married. It is the last day the death tax isn't at zero. It is the last day income tax rates don't go up across the board. That is what happens. They have also made more than $100 billion worth of additional spending promises in this budget, if they are offset. That's what all these reserve funds are about; more money for this program, more for that program, more money for this program, maybe some tax relief for the middle class. We have a reserve fund for it. My friends, a reserve fund is worth less than the paper it's printed on because all it says is we have these priorities, these ideas, these things we would like to do, we have no money for it; middle-class tax relief, more money for SCHIP, farm programs. But if we did come up with the money to pay for these programs, we would like to do it; but we don't have the money, so we're not doing it. That is basically what a reserve fund is. What we really have here, Mr. Chairman, is a huge tax increase, a tax increase that will have the effect of significantly increasing the burden on individual taxpayers and small businesses and will completely ignore the positive growth impacts that these tax cuts encouraged since 2003. Let's review some of the effects that low tax burdens have had on economic growth, on jobs. Before we provided tax relief in 2003, we were losing an average of 100,000 jobs a month. Since then, we have added 7.6 million new jobs; about 170,000 new jobs have been created per month since the tax relief. The economy. Before tax relief occurred in 2003, the economy grew at an average rate of 1.1 percent. Now it has been 3.5 percent since then, faster than it has grown in the last three decades, on average. Unemployment. When we passed tax relief, the unemployment rate was at 6.1 percent, now it's all the way down to 4.5 percent. Business investment. When we passed tax relief, business investment had been down for nine straight quarters. Since then, business investment has been up for 15 straight quarters. That is where the 7.6 million new jobs got created. Unfortunately, the Democrat budget would ignore all of this, with immense tax increases that threatened to put us right back where we were in the recession of 2001. And now on revenues. What they will tell you is that the revenues are the reason why we are in deficit. What they will tell you is that the tax cuts drove us deeply into deficits. That is completely untrue. On the contrary. If you take a look at this chart, the tax relief actually had the effect of increasing job creation and revenues coming into the Federal Government. We had 3 straight years of revenue decline during the recession. The tax cuts kicked in. What happened? Revenues went up exponentially, to the point where we have had double digit revenue gains for the last 3 years, and as a consequence, the deficit has been going down. These surging revenues have been a key factor in reducing this deficit. Mr. Chairman, the wrong way to balance the budget is to raise taxes. The right way to balance the budget is to control spending. We do not have a revenue problem in Washington. Money is coming in very quickly from taxpayers. What we have here is a spending problem. And the Democrats are making it worse because they are calling for all this new spending. For all of their talk about reducing the deficit, all they have done since they came into the majority is to spend more and more money, and we are only into the end of March. First they passed the omnibus bill that added $6 billion in new spending. Next came the supplemental for the warfighters in Iraq and Afghanistan; they added $21 billion in unrelated and unrequested spending. And now their budget resolution adds another $24 billion in new spending next year alone. For all the additional spending and gimmicks, the worst thing about this budget is not just the tax increases and the new spending, it's about what it does not include. This budget does nothing, absolutely nothing, to address our entitlement problem. This is what needs to be fixed, Mr. Chairman. We had all these eyewitnesses, all these experts come from the left and the right that the majority called, from the GAO to CBO to other groups, all talking about the fact that our Nation is facing a fiscal crisis, that entitlements are growing out of control, that our primary responsibility in crafting our budget should be to address entitlement spending. Let me read some quotes from the Democrats' own witnesses. The Comptroller General of the GAO has called the rising costs of government entitlements a fiscal cancer that threatens catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt America. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve came to testify. He said, ``Without early and meaningful action to address the rapid growth of entitlements, the U.S. economy could be weakened, with future generations bearing much of the cost.'' Even the Democrats' own witnesses from the Concord Coalition testified to the same. They've heard all of these witnesses, they've heard all these warnings, and they have chosen in this budget to do nothing. There is not a single reform, a single dollar of savings from entitlements. Obviously, they seem to be unconcerned with the $4.6 trillion in liability that Social Security has, which grows every year by $600 billion; or the $32 trillion in liability that my children are facing that gets larger and larger every single year. With this budget, they have simply accepted that we are going to continue to pile up massive amounts of debt to our children, and we are going to force them to pay double what we pay in taxes today to sustain these programs. This brings me to my final chart, a chart by the General Accounting Office. We know that if we fail to reform entitlements, the Federal Government will double in size by the year 2040. When my kids reach my age, this budget would leave them with the choice of either paying double our current tax rate, or accepting the fact that we just don't have enough money to spend on health care, defense, national security or education. I believe this is an enormous missed opportunity by the Democrats. Yes, the Democrats balance the budget in 2012, and they should be commended for reaching that goal. But at what price are they balancing the budget? They hit balance only because they are imposing the largest tax increase in American history. We still will have all of the same problems though. They are not reforming anything in government. They are not reforming any program. They are just calling for the American taxpayer to send more money in Congress so we can continue to spend too much money. And because of the path of big government and the tax-and-spend policies that the Democrats have chosen, this is going to be a very short-lived success. As soon as we get back to this balanced budget on paper in 2012, the year where their budget gets balanced on the backs of taxpayers, it won't be long before entitlement spending drives the Federal Government right back into deficits as far as the eye can see. This is not a Republican and Democrat issue. The fact is every independent expert in America that watches fiscal issues knows that government is growing out of control. We have really important programs that need our attention, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the three most important programs, in my particular opinion, in the Federal Government. Important programs, and programs people depend on, organize their lives around. We have to reform these programs in order to save these programs, yet they are doing nothing to do that. And because their budget does nothing to save these programs, they are hastening the day at which they go bankrupt. That is an abdication of responsibility. No matter how you put it, Mr. Chairman, this is a tax increase. No matter how you put it, Mr. Chairman, a reserve fund, no matter what flowery language you can attach to it, no matter what left-leaning think tank you can have to say whatever you want, a tax is a tax. In our budget, we make sure that these tax increases don't hit American families. We make sure the marriage penalty stays away. We make sure the child tax credit stays up. We make sure tax rates are down. We make sure the death tax goes away. What do they do? They insist upon, they require, they depend up all these tax increases. If they don't, their budget doesn't balance. They can't have it both ways. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California. Mr. Speaker, this bill takes the cake. Let me tell you why this bill takes the cake. For all the talk about fiscal discipline we have received from the new majority, this bill represents an egregious violation of the budget rules that the Democrat majority set for itself just recently. Last year in the 109th Congress, we decided to put in place a new tool of fiscal discipline, one that said if it is really an emergency, then it should be an emergency, but don't put pork and unrelated programs into emergency spending bills. So we set up a procedure, a procedure that set aside $6.45 billion to be reserved for domestic emergencies. If we had more money needed above that, the Budget Committee would meet, the Budget Committee would determine whether or not a particular program met the definition of a legitimate emergency, and then it would raise the corresponding amount, which then the Appropriations Committee could use. Last night we met in the Budget Committee. We could have easily added a discussion or a vote on whether or not this extra $22 billion fit the definition of a legitimate emergency and raised the amount, but what did this new majority do, after putting in place these rules that we had from the 109th Congress to this 110th Congress? They waived them. They are gone. All of this talk about fiscal discipline, all this talk of PAYGO, of paying for things, what happened? Gone. Waived. We added an amendment last night in the Budget Committee during the resolution markup to continue these rules next year so that we can't pork up emergency spending bills. Both parties have been guilty of this. Please note that I say that. What happened? They voted it down. So not only are we not living by the rules put in place just in January, we canceled the rules for next year. So what happens? This bill puts $22 billion in unrelated, unrequested spending, having nothing to do with the war, in here. And the idea that we police emergencies, that we make sure that when you do an emergency spending bill with no offsets, that it really is an emergency, and that we police it and we look at it in the Budget Committee, gone. The days of fiscal discipline have left. Last night in this budget, the Democrat majority passed the largest tax increase in American history. The reason they passed the largest tax increase in American history is because that is the only way they can balance the budget to also accommodate all the new spending they called for, because this budget had zero savings, no controls on spending, nothing but tax increases. And now they are waiving the rules so that they can bring any emergency spending bill they want without checking as to whether or not it truly is a legitimate emergency. Mr. Speaker, for this, and many, many, many other reasons, fiscal discipline, using the rules and obeying the rules and not handcuffing our generals, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I appreciate the gentleman.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor to oppose the bill not on the merits of the FOIA policy, but on the grounds that this bill had a budget section 303 point of order against it and that it violated the new PAYGO rules we have before us. This bill that we just now got 10 minutes ago, as we read it, we believe does not violate section 303 of the Budget Act or the PAYGO rules. But I think the point I would like to make is this: 10 minutes ago this bill did have a section 303 violation against it; 10 minutes ago this bill did violate the majority's own PAYGO rules they put in place less than 10 months ago. And it scores not just a $7 million, but a $63 million increase over 10 years. So $63 million over 10 years is a lot of money. And given the fact that this new amended bill, as it appears as we read it, does have the required language, subject to appropriations, that it is not out of order, it doesn't waive the PAYGO rules because it does pay for itself subject to appropriations. I will withhold my objection, but I simply want to say to the majority this place would run a lot better if, when we put bills on the calendar and bring them to the floor, that they comply with the rules that the majority themselves put in place just 2 months ago with respect to PAYGO and with respect to the Budget Act. I just think the whole place would work a lot better if we do that. Then we get on to debating the merits of this legislation. I think FOIA is an important tool. It needs to work better. I think there is a lot of merit to that point. But let's make sure that as we take a look at our budget problems, and they are enormous, our budget problems, if we can't make sure that bills that spend $63 million over 10 years can't comply with the Budget Act, can't comply with PAYGO, who is to say that bills that spend $2.9 trillion like our Federal budget can comply with it? So if we can't get the rules right on small bills, who is to say we are going to get the budget discipline rules right on the big bills? Fiscal discipline starts one step at a time, starts one bill at a time. We have got to get fiscal discipline rules in place and right on small business, especially if this Congress is going to get our arms around our larger fiscal problems. That is simply the point I want to make to the chairman.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, this was the product of a bipartisan compromise in the Ways and Means Committee. That is a good thing. I am not here to talk about the merits of the bill. I am here to talk about the fact that this is a suspension of the rules. Among the things that this rules suspends is the Budget Act, and this bill has two budget points of order that lie against it, section 303 and 311. So we are, in the early days of this majority, bringing a bill to the floor that violates the Budget Act. We haven't written the new budget, and we are violating the current one we have. As to the new PAYGO system, if the PAYGO rule were in place that we had before, or the PAYGO rule that was advocated by the Democrat minority last year would be in place, this would violate their PAYGO rule. It is convenient that this new, more-watered-down PAYGO doesn't apply to this, but I think the facts should be known that this bill does violate the Budget Act in two important ways.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Friends and colleagues, I am glad we are having this debate. It is good to debate the most important issue facing our country, the most important issue facing the world. I am glad we are talking about Iraq. We need to have a debate about Iraq. I have grave concerns about the conduct of this war. I look back at the last 3 or 4 years and I think to myself, boy, I would have done that differently, I would have done this differently; they should have done that, they should have done this. I think we all can look at hindsight and see how things should have been done differently. Well, here is where we are. The question is, is this the right resolution to pass? I for one don't know if this strategy is going to work or not. I believe our troops are going to do exactly what we ask them to do. I have perfect confidence that the U.S. soldiers, airmen, Army and Marines are going to do exactly what we ask them to do and they will do their jobs. Where my doubts lie are with the Iraqi Government. Will the Iraqi Government do what we are asking them to do? Will the Iraqi Government do what is needed to do to hold up their end of the bargain? I don't know. But what I do know is this: If we pass this resolution, this resolution, while our troops are in the middle of implementing this mission, while our troops are over there right now implementing this strategy, and we pass this resolution which says, you know what, we don't think you can succeed; we don't think you can do the job; we don't think you can do what you are being asked to do right now, that is a slap in the face. It is a killer of morale. This is the wrong message to send our troops. We have to think about the alternatives. We have to think about the consequences of failure. We have to think about the message this sends our troops. We have to think about the message this sends our enemies. Madam Speaker, by telling the world, by telling Americans and by telling our enemies and our troops we don't think this is going to work, we don't think this can succeed, what message does that send? And for those who say this won't work and I am voting for this resolution, it is your obligation to tell us how better you can do this, what is your plan, what is your strategy. Because we have to think about the consequences of failure. We have to accept and know that if we just pull out we will have sectarian genocide. We will have a safe haven for terrorists with oil money. We will have a Middle East power struggle that will be very, very ugly, where countries that are very hostile to us, like Iran and Syria, will have the run of the region. We have to look at those consequences. But more important than anything else, Madam Speaker, is the fact that I just cannot look our soldiers in the eyes, and I am traveling to this region in a few days, I cannot look them in the eyes and tell them that when I was in the comforts of Congress, I sat there high open my pedestal and I told the American people and you that the mission you are about to engage in, the job you are trying hard to do for us, you can't complete it. You are incapable. It won't work. Why bother trying? I can't send that message to our troops. With that, Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote. This is the right debate to have, the wrong resolution to pass.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We have heard all this talk about the vote that 203 Democrats took in H.R. 4680, motion to recommit; it is apples to oranges; it doesn't compare. Let me read the language so it is black and white and not a lie: Noninterference by the Secretary. In administering the prescription medicine benefit program established under this part, the Secretary may not require a particular formulary, institute a price structure for benefits or in any way ration benefits, interfere in any way with the negotiations between benefit administrators and medicine manufacturers or wholesalers, or otherwise interfere with the competitive nature of providing a prescription medicine benefit using private benefit administrators except as is required to guarantee coverage of the defined benefit. Mr. Becerra voted for it. Mr. Stark wrote it; 203 Democrats voted for it. Now it is the wrong thing to do. Let's be really clear. This is a bumper sticker bill that doesn't work. The policy idea here that 92 percent of Americans want to see happen is that we do it just like the Veterans' Administration does. I wonder if those 92 percent Americans were told; at the VA you can't choose your doctor, you can't choose your pharmacy. Two thirds of the top named brand drugs that seniors use aren't even offered by the VA. You can't get them. Do you think 92 percent of Americans want that to happen for Medicare? Medicare beneficiaries ought to be able to choose their doctor; they should be able to go to their neighborhood pharmacy. So why are we doing this? CBO, HHS, they all tell us this will do nothing to lower prices. This will do nothing to save the government money. What has the current program done? It lowered the premium 40 percent in one year. It lowered the prices so much beyond our expectations that this new law which came into law in 2003 is $189 billion less than we expected it to be. That is real savings. The next argument we hear is, well, we want the Secretary to use the negotiating power of Medicare, get the bulk of negotiations going. How many people would he conceivably be able to negotiate on behalf of? All the people in the PDP, 16.5 million. Well, what are the prescription drug plans doing right now? You see, they don't just negotiate on behalf of Medicare; they negotiate on behalf of everybody they cover. Caremark, 70 million people they are negotiating on behalf of, including Medicare. Medco, 54 million people they are negotiating on behalf of, including Medicare. Express Scripts, 51 million. Wellpoint, 36 million. These plans have more negotiating power and leverage and strength than Medicare could possibly have. That is why they are getting better discounts. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, after careful consideration of H.R. 2, it is with great regret that I announce my opposition to this version of a minimum wage increase. I believe an increase in the minimum wage should be accompanied by small business relief to offset the burden placed on U.S. employers, so these businesses can absorb the costs of an increase. Last year, I supported an increase in the minimum wage because it also included tax relief measures for employers to offset the cost of the proposed minimum wage increase. It is unfortunate that House leadership, rather than bring this balanced approach to the floor for a vote, instead introduced what basically amounts to an unfunded mandate on our Nation's small businesses. According to a 1999 study by the Small Business Administration, approximately 54 percent of our Nation's minimum wage earners are employed by firms who have less than 100 employees. This minimum wage increase will force our Nation's small businesses to make tough cost- cutting decisions in order to stay in business. When coupled with health care cost increases they are already facing, which the National Federation of Independent Businesses estimates at 15-20 percent, many employers will be forced to either increase the costs of their products or lay-off lower skilled workers. Both options would have detrimental effects on the substantial progress our economy is making. This legislation also hurts job creation. Economists widely agree that an increase in the minimum wage without an offset for small business relief will result in much higher unemployment for workers. This is because an increase in the minimum wage also represents an increase in the costs faced by employers around the Nation. When our Nation's businesses face increases in their total cost per employee, they must often face the tough decision of either cutting jobs or reducing employee benefits such as health care, day care or vacation time as they struggle to pay for the new wage requirements. In short, it is essential that any increase in the minimum wage be accompanied by tax relief or health care savings for our Nation's small businesses. Because this legislation does not include any provisions that may offset the costs it levies on our Nation's employers, I cannot support it.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains between the two parties?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss this title IV part of the package. And I learned, when we were in the majority, watching the minority speak and criticize virtually every move we made, I thought it would be wrong if you thought there were good elements of a package to criticize it. There are good elements in this package, and I want to start off by talking about those good elements that are contained in this package before I start my criticism. First, the earmark reforms. I am an earmark reformer. I was one of the parts of the team that reformed earmarks, that negotiated the earmark reforms we passed last fall. I think these earmark reforms in this package that the majority created are very good. They are very commendable. They work. So I want to compliment the majority for their serious earmark reform package that they have in here. I think it is high time that when a Member of Congress requests an earmark, that that Member's name be associated with that earmark, that that Member's justification be associated with the earmark, and that we, as Members of this body, have the opportunity to vote on whether or not that earmark should be funded or not. We need more transparency and more accountability in the way we spend taxpayer dollars. I am very pleased that in the last Congress, in the 109th Congress, we in the House passed those rules, and I am very excited that the majority has decided to continue those rules and build on that success by improving the package of earmark reforms we passed in the last Congress. So that part of this package, I want to compliment the gentleman from South Carolina and the others who put this together. I want to direct my comments on the PAYGO part of this. I had high hopes for this part of the package. I had high hopes that the PAYGO rules that we are about to vote on would provide much needed fiscal discipline to Washington and to the way we spend taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately, this package just doesn't cut the mustard. I see this as a timid, weak, watered down, paper tiger PAYGO. What I mean when I say that, Mr. Speaker, is I believe this will have the practical effect of simply raising taxes. Let me be very clear, Mr. Speaker. We don't have a tax revenue problem in Washington. We have a spending problem in Washington. Tax revenues have been coming into the Federal Treasury at double digit rates over the last 2 years. That is not the problem. We are getting plenty of money from workers' paychecks, from families in their taxes. It is leaving the Treasury too fast. That is our problem, and that is where the budget discipline ought to be placed, on spending. The problem with this PAYGO is it will have the practical effect of simply having higher taxes to chase higher spending. It does absolutely nothing to address the deficit we have today. It does absolutely nothing to address today's level of spending. It does not address the uncontrollable and unsustainable rates of spending that we have with our entitlement programs today. Now, I realize that the last majority wasn't perfect on spending. I will be the first to note that because many people saw me coming to the floor saying that in the last Congress. But when we enact spending discipline, and when we are telling the American people that we are now going to get tough on spending, we are going to be fiscally conservative, that is what we should do; and this does not do that. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this PAYGO regime, if it does actually work, will make it clear that the tax relief of 2001 and 2003, which got us out of a recession, which brought new revenues into the Federal Government, which created seven million new jobs, will go away. This is putting the American taxpayer on a collision course with higher taxes. And why is it doing that? Because this system, this PAYGO system, will make the pressure toward raising taxes to pay for new entitlement spending. And so for that reason, I am opposed to this PAYGO regime, Mr. Speaker. There are many others I would like to speak about. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.