Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Mr. Hensarling of Texas.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to a new Member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. First of all, I want to start off by saying I appreciate the gentleman from South Carolina. He is a good man, knows his stuff, and I very much look forward to working with him. I just want to respond to a couple of points. In fact, we attempted to put PAYGO in place, PAYGO on spending. So if you try to increase spending somewhere else, you should cut spending elsewhere and not raise taxes. That went down in 2004, largely because of the minority opposing it. Second point. The reason PAYGO worked well in the 1990s is because it was statutory. If you did not comply, an across-the-board sequestration would take place, and the threat of that was one of the reasons why PAYGO was successful. The third point I simply want to make is, you are going to hear a lot of talk about we had a surplus, we handed it to the Republicans and they squandered it. What was the surplus? The surplus was projected. It was projected. And in those economic projections they did not foresee the Enron scandals, they did not foresee the dot-com bubble bursting, and they did not foresee 9/11. Of course, they did not foresee that. They did not see the perfect storm of economic calamity, and that is what evaporated the surplus. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. And the gentleman from Florida?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

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

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. First off, I want to start off by congratulating the majority on the very commendable earmark reform legislation that is contained in this title. I just want to emphasize that. But this PAYGO package is woefully inadequate. It is a paper tiger. Three quick points. Number one, this protects all current spending, even the programs that are scheduled to expire. However, it assumes that expiring tax relief will lapse; and, thus, require offsets to continue. This is a double standard that reflects their preference, protect higher spending but not lower taxes. It is a recipe for tax increases. Number two, it contains a huge loophole. Spend now, save later. You can enact new spending now and come up with savings down the road, which we know never really happens. Big loophole. Number three, this is a weaker version of PAYGO than what the majority was proposing just last year. They were not allowing points of order to be waived when you violated a PAYGO rule in their earlier version. But now when they are in the majority, you can simply waive it with a majority vote upstairs in the Rules Committee. This is a much weaker version of PAYGO. But I want to address a few other things. Number one, you are going to hear this all year: They gave us a surplus. We inherited a surplus; we squandered the surplus. Madam Speaker, what was the surplus? The surplus was a projection. It was a projection by economists at OMB and CBO that said we are going to have all of this money coming in. You know what they didn't project, they didn't project 9/11. They didn't project war. They didn't project the dot-com bubble bursting or the recession or the Enron scandals. What did that do? It was a fiscal train wreck for America, and our numbers went down and we had to spend more money when we went to Afghanistan and Iraq. Where are we today? The budget deficit went down 40 percent. In 1 year, the budget deficit went down 40 percent off projections. Why, Madam Speaker? It went down that much because revenues increased. Why did revenues increase, because we let the American people keep more of their own hard-earned dollars. They were able to keep more of their tax dollars. There is a very deep difference between our two parties on principle and on philosophy. We believe that the money in America in the Federal Government is the people's money. That the money we spend is not our money, it is the money of our constituents. It is their money. When you see rules like this, which I want to quote from the Wall Street Journal: PAYGO, by contrast, gives the appearance of spending discipline while making it all but impossible to let taxpayers keep more of their own money. It should really be called spend and tax as you go. This bill does nothing to control current spending. It does nothing to reduce the current deficit, and it puts us on a path to raise taxes. We believe the priorities ought to be different: That we ought to control spending and reduce spending to balance the budget, not raise taxes because after all, the money that comes to the Federal Government is not our money. It is the people's money. It comes from the paychecks of working Americans, men and women, small businesses, farmers and businesses. By letting people keep more of their own hard-earned dollar, our economy grows, revenues grow. We have to watch spending. That is where the priorities ought to be placed. This does not deliver that. Hopefully we can work together in the future to have a real spending mechanism that actually controls spending rather than puts us on a pathway to higher taxes. Madam Speaker, I reluctantly oppose this legislation because of the honorable earmark reforms. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation on behalf of SC Johnson, a company located in Racine, Wisconsin, who manufactures a broad range of well known consumer household brands including Windex, Raid, Glade, Pledge, Edge shaving gel, Ziploc and Scrubbing Bubbles. I am proud that SC Johnson has its headquarters in my congressional district and employs over 2,500 hard- working Wisconsinites. I believe that Congress must do all that it can to help companies like SC Johnson remain competitive in the global marketplace so that good, high-paying manufacturing jobs are retained in. Wisconsin and throughout the United States. Over the past few years, our state has lost thousands of manufacturing jobs. We must bring down the cost of manufacturing at home so that we can stem the job loss and create new opportunities for the state's workers. The bill that I am introducing will help achieve this purpose by reducing the import tariff on bath and shower cleaning appliances from 4.2 percent to 2.1 percent. No comparable products are produced in this country. Reducing these tariffs will bring down SC Johnson's costs of doing business at home and benefit the SC Johnson employees who live and work at the company's world headquarters in Racine and at other locations throughout the United States. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to pass this legislation.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I am sitting here listening to this debate and I am wondering, what bill are they talking about? Are they talking about the bill that 70 Democrats voted for earlier in the year that got 294 votes? Are they talking about the bill that is endorsed by the United Auto Workers, by the building trades? Are they talking about the bill that was negotiated between Democrats and Republicans, between the House and the other body? Because that is the bill we are talking about right here. This bill was written with the input from labor, with the input from management, with the input from employees and employers. What is wrong? What needs to be fixed? Well, you know what needs to be fixed? If an employer promises their employee they are going to fund their pension, by golly, that is exactly what they should do. That is what this bill does. It makes sure they do in fact fund that pension 100 percent. If an employer wants to prefund their employees' pension, wants to do good by helping them ahead of time, we want to change the rules so they can do that. And you know what, if an employer wants to exploit loopholes and rip off their employees, shortchange their pension, as the current law allows employers to do, we have got to stop them from doing that. And that is what this bill does. That is why this bill is supported by unions, by management, by Republicans, by Democrats, by the House and the other body. This is a bill that is a good bill that has been negotiated for a year, and I urge its passage.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, what this is about is finding peace and security in the world. The future of peace and security in the world largely rests upon the future of peace and security in the Middle East. The question is what we are as Americans going to do to help Middle Eastern countries, moderate Middle Eastern countries, be more open, be more fair, be more free, be more democratic, be more peaceful. This agreement does that. Now, for one reason or another, Members here, I believe, have decided to oppose this agreement and then look for reasons to justify that opposition. They have raised two big red herrings, labor and ports. We asked the Congressional Research Service to look at this port issue, to look at this red herring issue. I want to read from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service that did two studies this month on this issue. Upon close inspection of the language in this agreement, it appears that this claim is misleading because it appears that Omani companies are already presently able to perform these port services. Phrased another way, the United States has reserved the right to maintain our existing legal restrictions with respect to those aspects of maritime transportation in which we already have limitations, as well as adopt new measures in these categories that may be more restrictive. In some ways, it imposes new opposition and new restrictions that don't currently exist with respect to management of ports. In conclusion, report number two: while it is theoretically possible for Oman to bring a legal challenge to the actions of the United States before a third-party tribunal, the United States would appear to be on solid legal grounds for asserting not only that the panel does not have the legal authority to determine the validity of such a matter, but also that the inconsistent measure is permitted and justifiable, given the broad self-judging language of the national security exemption. This means we decide unilaterally, we decide if any of these transactions are not in our national security interest, it doesn't happen. There is nothing the WTO can do about that. Now, what about labor? This is another agreement that we have had, the labor standard invoked. This is the strongest labor agreement of any trade agreement we have brought to the floor in this Congress and in previous Congresses. Now, in an effort to be bipartisan, in an effort to work with the other side of the aisle, we have had an exchange of letters and agreements between the Omanis, Democrats and our government USTR. In November 2005, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee asked Oman to clarify six areas of law and asked for nine concessions in labor law. In January, Oman responded in detail to all of those concerns. In February 2006, the Democrats forwarded another set of demands and questions, raising new issues. In March, in response to those concerns, Oman made eight commitments to the United States and agreed to enact all of these reforms. It goes on and on: new demands being requested, new demands being met, to the point where the Omanis have, by decree, already implemented many of these higher labor standards. Any of those that they didn't already decree just a couple of weeks ago, they have promised to put them into law by October 30. What did we do with Bahrain? With Bahrain they promised to introduce legislation to raise their labor standards. That was the Bahrain standard. With Oman, no, they did not promise to implement legislation. They promised to implement law by a date certain this year. So we have increased labor standards. We have put into place core ILO standards. We are rising the tide, but what it all gets down to is this. Because of this agreement, the Omanis are raising labor standards for their workers. Because of this agreement, Omanis are making their country more free and more transparent for their people. Because of this agreement, we are saying thank you to an ally. Let us continue to move toward peace and prosperity. Why do I care so much about this? Because I do not want my kids to face the war on terror that we are facing right now. And how do we do that? We do that by making sure that these countries, from which many terrorists come, have opportunities for their young people. I do not want a young person, the next generation, growing up in tyrannical dictatorships susceptible to the whims of al Qaeda, appealing to the madrassas. I want young people in these countries growing up, reaching their dreams, reaching their potential, having freedom, having the ability to determine where they want to go with their lives, being creative, being able to channel their energy in a positive direction so our children do not have to face this war or on terror. We must pass this trade agreement because it is vital to our national security interests.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I would be happy to.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to draw off the inspiration I just received from the gentlelady from Connecticut's comments. As I listened to her give this excellent overview of not only the benefits of these trade agreements, but of this one in particular, of all the work that the Omanis have gone through to bring this up into shape, to increase their worker rights, to increase their transparency, to increase their participation in women's rights, I just couldn't help but thinking, What if we don't pass this? What if we say no? What if we here in the House of Representatives this week say, that is not good enough, sorry, no, to the Omanis? The Omanis are taking a risk in their neighborhood. They are choosing whether or not to go down the path of the Iranians and the Syrians and others like that, or to go down the path of openness, of freedom, to be an ally with the U.S. in fighting the war on terror and giving people freedom. What if we say no to that? I just cannot imagine the consequences of us working with this ally of ours, getting them to agree to all of these enormous amounts of reforms and concessions to make this trade agreement work, and then only to say no. That, in my opinion, Madam Speaker, would be a tragedy. It would be a tragic mistake to say to this country, this ally, these people whom we have the utmost amount of respect for, to say, sorry, partisan politics. It is an election year. Didn't mean to have you as collateral damage, but no. That to me would be an outright tragedy if that happened. So I want to conclude on a high note, and that high note is just as we helped lift the tide of freedom and economic engagement and economic freedom in Morocco, in Israel, in Jordan, in Bahrain, so too do I think we will do this in Oman this week. And all of that is going to increase U.S. jobs. Yes, it is going to help us sell more products to the region. But, most importantly, it is going to help the people in these countries have a better life. It is going to help them be more free. And that is going to help make sure that my children, my kids, who are 4, 3, and 1 year old, make sure that they live in a peaceful America, that they don't have to fight the fight against terror that we are right now engaged in. That is what this means to me when I put my card in the voting machine and vote on this agreement in a couple of days. That is why this is so dearly important. That is why this is not just your rank-and-file trade agreement for widgets and corn and dairy or whatever. That is why this is an important trade agreement. I really encourage all of my colleagues, put the partisan blinders aside for that day and vote with America, vote for your kids, vote for good economics and vote for freedom in the Middle East. Madam Speaker, with that, I would be happy to conclude and say thank you to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. English, for all your leadership on this issue. Thank you for hosting this discussion tonight. I think it has been very helpful. I just look forward to making sure this actually occurs, I think on Thursday when we do this.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I think it is important to note the bipartisan nature of these agreements in the past. We had the best vote count of this session of Congress on a trade agreement in the last Bahraini Free Trade Agreement. We passed with large bipartisan votes the Moroccan Free Trade Agreement. We passed with great bipartisan votes the Jordanian Free Trade Agreement. The Oman Free Trade Agreement already passed with a very large bipartisan vote in the other body, the Senate. We, hopefully, will continue to pass these things with good bipartisan agreements because in this sense it is very important that as we go overseas on an issue that is so important that we speak with one voice, as Democrats and as Republicans, that we make these bipartisan. And I am very pleased with the fact that Congress has for large measure treated these important Middle East free trade agreements on a bipartisan basis. Our caucus includes three Republican cochairmen and three Democrat cochairmen. So I do believe that we will see support from the other side of the aisle. I do not know how big it will be, but it is very important that we speak with one voice, saying it is not just the Republicans who want to do this, it is not just the Democrats. It is that the Americans want to engage in trade with the Middle East countries we are talking about. We want to support their efforts to modernize, their efforts to open, to liberalize their economies. And that to me is a very important signal. I see that we have been joined by the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. If the gentleman will yield further.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I will. And if the gentleman will yield, I just want to read a quote from the 9/11 Commission report which talked about these FTAs, and the 9/11 Commission which revealed what should America do to win the war on terrorism to make Americans safer again. They said a ``comprehensive U.S. strategy should include economic policies that encourage development, more open societies and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families and enhance the prospects of their children.'' That is why we should engage in these FTAs, these free trade agreements in the Middle East. This new breakthrough from Oman on all these higher labor standards that they are raising is precedent setting. It does encourage its neighbors just like Bahrain is now engaging in. It encourages their neighbors to increase not only their standards of labor for their citizens but to increase their citizens' access to prosperity, access to opportunity, access to bettering their lives for themselves. That is what is accomplished by seeing this dialogue take place. That is what is accomplished when we as Americans engage in mutual economic agreements like this. The thing that also impresses me with the Oman Free Trade Agreement, just like we had with Bahrain and Morocco and others, is our governments are getting to know each other much better. Because we are involved in a global war on terrorism, it inevitably involves a strong level of dialogue between the United States Government and the United States Congress and the governments and the leaders of those countries. But what we are lacking is human-to-human interaction, people-to-people interaction, understanding of the American people, of the citizens of Oman, the citizens of Bahrain, the citizens of Middle Eastern countries. That is what trade accomplishes. Trade brings people together. Trade brings people into engaging in mutually beneficial endeavors, the people of America, farmers, manufacturers. We make tractors, Case Construction Equipment in Racine, Wisconsin. We sell cheese. We grow corn and soybeans, General Motors cars. We want our people to go to these countries and understand them, know them, sell them their products and have people-to-people interaction. And if we have people- to-people interaction through trade, through business agreements, through business arrangements, then we have better understanding of one another. And better understanding of one another, better friendships will bridge the gaps between cultures. That will help us fundamentally understand what is going on in the Middle East, and it will help them understand us. My biggest fear is that people in the Arab world, they call it the infamous ``Arab Street,'' that they will look at al Jazeera or VH1 or some distorted lens of what Americans stand for, of who Americans are, of what American culture is, and that is how they will frame their opinions. That is not what I want them to think America is all about. What I hope people in the Arab world think America is all about is by meeting an American, is by meeting somebody from America who can engage in an agreement of mutual economic behavior, who can engage in trade, who can sell corn and soybeans and things like that. That is how we help bridge this gap, bring understanding of each other, and work together to fighting the war on terror. By bringing moderate Muslim countries in allegiance with us and growing our alliances and growing our strategic allies, we will help defeat the terrorists. The minority of Islamic fundamentalists in this part of the world that seek to do them and us harm, we can work together and defeat that. And what the best consequence of it at the end of the day is people become more prosperous. There are more jobs created at both sides of the ocean, both sides of the equation. That is why I think this is such an important trade agreement, and that is why this is an important part of our continuing efforts to increase ties and economic engagement with countries in the Middle East. And this is, of all things, one of the most successful foreign- policy tools we have at our disposal, and it is a sign of respect. It shows these countries, Oman in particular, that we respect them. We respect their people. We respect their leaders. We respect the reforms that they are implementing to give their people more freedom. That is a sign of respect, and I think with respect you get better understanding, better allies, and better strategic alliances, and that is all to the good. I just want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for having this hour to discuss this. We will be voting on this in a couple of days, and this is yet again a very, very important piece of our foreign policy and our economic policy to create more jobs here and to make us more safe. And I just want to thank the gentleman for having this discussion tonight.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to congratulate the gentleman for all his leadership on this issue. And I too want to come to the floor of the House of Representatives to talk about how important this Oman trade agreement really is and how it fits in the whole scheme of things with respect to our strategy for the Middle East. Now, a lot of people are paying attention to the Middle East. We watched over the weekend all of the awful things that are happening in Israel and southern Lebanon, and we realize that if we are to win the war on terror, we have to look at a short-term strategy and a long-term strategy. And when I think about the things we want to accomplish with the Middle East and with moderate Arab countries, democracy. Democracy and freedom and individual rights are the ultimate, the ultimate weapon against terrorism. When a young person grows up into a closed society with no opportunity to reach his or her destiny or his aspirations or dreams, they are going to be more susceptible to the likes of al Qaeda. They are going to be more susceptible to joining into some kind of a perverted ideology that can convince a young man or a young woman to strap on a suicide belt and go into a pizza parlor and blow themselves up. But people growing up in free societies, in democracies, are people who have a chance to reach their aspirations, to channel their energies to better themselves and their families. By growing up in a free society, that is how we can ultimately make sure that our children aren't fighting the war on terror that we are fighting, aren't confronting the kind of awful terrorism we are confronting. Why does anything that I just said have anything to do with the Oman trade agreement? Well, here, Mr. Speaker, is what it has to do with the Oman trade agreement. With these trade agreements, we don't get just lower tariffs for corn and soybeans and cars and plastics; with these trade agreements, we get good government. With these trade agreements, we get these countries who voluntarily change their rules and their laws to be more free and open to their own people. By engaging in a trade agreement with the United States of America, a country in the Middle East such as Oman, embraces the rule of law, embraces enforceable contracts, individual rights. Let me just go through a few of the things that Oman has agreed to as a consequence and as a part of this free trade agreement. Political reforms. Oman has enacted reforms to increase public participation in government, extending voting rights for its consultive council to all citizens over the age of 21, and appointing women to key positions in its government, including the first female Ambassador from an Arab country appointed to serve in the United States. Oman is a leader in women's rights. Oman is a leader in suffrage so that women are treated more equally in the Arab gulf. Economic reforms. Oman has enacted broad economic reforms to open itself to trade and investment and provide opportunities to its citizens. In fact, the economic freedom of the world 2005 ranks Oman 17 of 127 countries analyzed in terms of economic freedom. They are the second highest ranking among all countries in the proposed Middle East free trade area. Labor reforms. This is where a lot of progress has been made. Oman has unilaterally, across all labor laws, through decrees and commitments, upgraded their labor standards for their workers, for their employees, for their citizens to at least the ILO core standards. This is the strongest labor agreement, trade agreement, we have ever had with the free trade agreements with the United States.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I would be happy to yield.