Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. This exceeds the Bahrain agreement because, like Bahrain, Oman agreed not only to the core ILO, International Labor Organization standards and worker rights, but with the Bahrain agreement, Bahrain simply agreed to introduce legislation to their Parliament and then try to pass the legislation, upgrading their labor standards. Oman went beyond that. Oman agreed to decree, to put these into law. So not only, with Bahrain we got the promise to propose legislation; in Oman we got the law. We got the changes. Changes are taking place right now as we speak. Some changes took place last week. All of the labor standard increases will take place by October 30 of this year. So the fact is with Oman, because of the negotiations of the free trade agreement, we are rising the tide of worker rights. We are rising the quality and openness of this society. We are looking at an ally who has been a tremendous ally in the war on terror. They have ended their Israeli boycotts. They have opened up and are opening up trade with Israel. They are giving women unprecedented rights relative to other Arab countries. And all of this is being done because of trade agreements. We didn't send a division of soldiers to Oman. We didn't parachute the 82nd Airborne into Oman. We didn't fire a bullet. We didn't put a boot on the ground. We engaged in trade negotiations and trade agreements, and this democratization, this openness, this free economic model, is being embraced by the Omanis because of these trade agreements. So what we are accomplishing here is the single most important aspect of our war on terror, the single most important aspect of making sure that our children are safe from a world of terror when they reach our age group, when they come of age; and that is, making the Middle East more free, more democratic, more open, so that young people growing up in these countries will have opportunities to pursue their dreams, to pursue their aspirations, to determine the direction of their own lives. That, in a nutshell is why these agreements are so important in the Middle East. That is why this particular agreement with Oman is so important to pass because of all of the wonderful things they are doing to help their own countrymen, to open up their society, to liberalize their economy, to give people individual rights in their economy so they can reach those dreams, all with an agreement that is in our best interest economically. It is good for our jobs. We will sell more of American-made equipment. We will sell more American-made agricultural products. We will get more jobs out of the deal, and they will get closer to a much more open society. That, Mr. Speaker, is what I call a win-win situation. That is why I think it is so important that we take all of these wonderful reforms that they have enacted and pass the rest of these into law by implementing this Oman Free Trade Agreement, because it is good for Omanis, it is good for Americans, and it is, most importantly, good for keeping democracy alive in the Middle East, keeping freedom alive, and keeping terrorism at bay.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to honor and welcome Pastor Michael Jackson here today as our guest chaplain. He has come all the way from my hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, to lead us in prayer today, and we are blessed to have his guidance as we begin our legislative day. Since November of 1999, Pastor Jackson has served as the senior pastor of New Life Assembly of God in Janesville, Wisconsin, and he has used his many talents to reach out to our entire community and help more and more people open their hearts to the Lord's grace. While the church itself has grown and produced offshoots throughout nearby communities, as well as New Life Hispanic Church and the Korean Fellowship in Janesville, Pastor Jackson has not only served as a leader of a thriving church body, he has been a leader throughout our whole entire area. Just one example of this is the annual Freedom Fest Patriotic Rally that the New Life Assembly of God has during the 4th of July. My wife and our kids enjoy this every single year. It is simply one of the many gifts that New Life Assembly of God gives to area residents. The church has also helped initiate a Day of Compassion in Janesville, which provides those in need with access to free food, health screening, spiritual counsel, and other assistance. Pastor Jackson brings 36 years of experience as a pastor to his work in the church, the community, and to the House floor today. Pastor, thank you so much for sharing your wisdom and praying with us this morning.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, if I were present for today's vote on rollcall 363, passage of H.R. 4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act of 2006, I would have voted ``aye''. In addition, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 361, the amendment offered by Ms. Berkley, because I feel it would have undermined the intent of the legislation. I also would have opposed rollcall 362, the motion to recommit.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I supported H.R. 2143, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act, which passed the House by an overwhelming 319-104 vote in 2003. I also voted in favor of H.R. 3125, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, in 2000. I supported reforming Internet gambling then, and I am pleased that Congress has decided to take up this issue again today. Current regulations on Internet gambling are out of date and ineffective. Forty-eight State Attorneys General have already written to Congress asking for Federal Internet gambling legislation, and many sports organizations have echoed their support. Although States have passed laws attempting to stem the tide against Internet gambling, it continues to occur with greater frequency, with more and more Web sites being created daily that explicitly target our children. These sites not only take advantage of young Americans who have no means to pay their debts, but also encourage a dangerous, and possibly lifelong, addiction. Equally problematic, online gambling also serves as a tool for criminals to launder money and evade taxes. We must ensure that this stream of funding is closed to those who seek to do harm to the United States. While it is essential to protect an individual's right to engage in legal and honest gaming, I also believe we have a duty to protect the public from abusive and fraudulent websites that take advantage of minors and exploit the system for their own gain. H.R. 4411 walks the fine line between these goals and provides law enforcement with the tools it needs to aggressively crack down on illegal gambling. I support this legislation and am pleased at its passage through the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Appropriations Committee from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis). (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be bringing this bill to the floor today, and I would like to explain why we are doing this, why this is needed. Just last year, according to the CRS or Citizens Against Government Waste, whichever group you want to talk about, we had over 10,000 earmarks here, totaling almost $28 billion. Mr. Speaker, not every one of those earmarks came in just conference reports, but many of them did. Mr. Speaker, we need more transparency and more accountability in how we spend the taxpayer dollars. In particular, Mr. Speaker, we ought to have the ability to be able to have votes on the individual merits of spending items, particularly those that we never have a chance to vote on, things that go into conference reports. The earmark reform legislation that was passed earlier by this body did a lot to address bringing more transparency and accountability to the spending system as bills come to the floor. This is a perfect complement to that, the legislative line item veto, because after bills are considered, after conference reports are dealt with, we often find out that in conference a lot of things get put into those bills that we didn't get a chance to scrutinize. We ought to be able to vote on those things. Now, how does this work? And I want to get to the constitutional point in just a moment. Here is exactly how the process is laid out under this constitutional legislative line item veto: number one, after a bill becomes law, the President identifies an item of discretionary spending, direct spending or special interest tax break in legislation that is being signed into law. The President then submits a special message to Congress, no more than five, asking for the rescission of a spending item or items. After receiving this bill or messages, the House and the Senate have a total of 14 legislative days to bring it to the floor for an up-or-down vote. If the House and Senate pass the President's rescission request, it is sent to the President and becomes law. If either House votes against it, the rescission is not enacted. This is far different than the earlier legislative line item veto. This is not your father's line item veto. In fact, I agree with the Supreme Court ruling that said that the earlier line item veto was unconstitutional, because that line item veto, among other things, violated the separation of powers. This protects the prerogatives of the legislative branch, specifically, because this: the action is executed by Congress, not the administration. Under the old version the administration made the decision. Line item veto. That is the end of it. If Congress didn't like it, they would have to come up with a two- thirds vote to override that. That is not how this situation works. Under this system, the President, who already has similar existing rescission authority, sends a rescission request to the Congress, just like he can do today. Only under this situation, we simply add a fast track authority, like we do with a lot of other legislation, like trade legislation, whereby we can't duck the vote by within 14 legislative days the House and the Senate vote on this, up or down. We decide in Congress. We vote to affirm the rescission. If we choose not to pass the rescission, the rescission does not take place. The money is spent. This is constitutional to the point where the gentleman who argued against the line item veto successfully in the Supreme Court in 1998 came to testify in three different committee hearings, Charles Cooper, as to the constitutionality of this, that this does, in fact, protect the prerogatives of the legislative branch; that this is consistent with the bicameralism and presentment clause in the Constitution, and maintains the separation of powers. Now, we have worked with a lot of parties. We have worked with Democrats, constitutional experts, Republicans, OMB. In fact, this bill has been so bipartisan in the past, similar legislation has been proposed. In 1993, H.R. 1578 received 250 votes, including 174 Democrats. In 1994, H.R. 4600 received 342 votes, an expedited rescission bill, 173 Democrats. Two years ago, Congressman Charles Stenholm and I, a Blue Dog Democrat, brought it to the floor. We got 174 votes for virtually the same legislation, where we got 45 Democrats. Now, the gentleman from South Carolina, the ranking member, has brought a lot of good points to the table. He is a gentleman who has watched this process for many years and understands this process very, very well. In particular, he brought six items of concern to the committee 3 weeks ago, which I took very, very copious notes of, which I took to heart. And because of that, we have made six big changes to this bill to try and improve this legislation, because I think the gentleman from South Carolina made excellent suggestions. We limited time on the President's submission of a rescission request. We limited the number of requests. We wrote a ban on duplicative requests so the President couldn't send a request over and over and over and tie us into knots. We shortened the deferral period to the minimum amount necessary. We clarified that existing entitlements are exempt. Not Medicare, not Social Security, not other entitlements. We put a sunset in here so that we can revisit this law in 6 years to make sure that the balance of power is maintained. Why is this needed, Mr. Speaker? I think the success of this tool will be judged more in how much wasteful spending doesn't get put into bills and less on how much wasteful spending we take out of bills. Having this deterrence, having this extra layer of accountability will bring the level of sunshine, transparency and accountability to the spending and taxing process in Congress exactly where it is needed the most. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished majority whip, Mr. Blunt.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman for a very substantive motion to recommit. I would like to go through a number of the provisions he raises and some of the concerns I have with them and why I have to rise in opposition. Number one, Mr. Speaker, he excludes direct spending from the line item veto. A case in point. When we do the transportation reauthorization bill, that thing contains something like 5,000 earmarks. The bridge to nowhere is one of the most prolific examples of such things. I do not think those things should be exempt from this line item veto tool. Number two, he reduces the number of messages from five to one. My fear with this change is that it will reduce the effectiveness of this tool. If the President only has one bite at the apple, only one bill he can send, he will only go after one or two earmarks. What if a bill has 5,000 earmarks? What if a bill has 500 earmarks? The President ought to be able to send us more votes so we can go after more earmarks and cut out more wasteful spending. If he only gets to send 1 bill, and he puts 50 pieces in that bill, then the President will be growing his vote coalition against it. Fifty State delegations also vote against it. So I think if you just do one bill, you are going to make this tool very, very small. It will not be nearly as effective because the President will be disincentivized from putting many earmarks in it because they will fall under their own weight. That is why we put five bills so we can go after a great number of earmarks so that we can get maximum output for this. Now, the other thing, it permits amendments to strike. I understand the intent of this. I think it is valuable, but the problem I have with permitting amendments to strike is that then you are going to ping-pong back and forth with the House and Senate. You will see no end to this. The reason why we do not allow amendments to conference reports is because conference reports represent a conclusion of a legislative process, the end of a legislative process before a bill becomes law. But that is where a lot of mischief happens, and mischief occurs because people insert earmarks in conference reports. I think by doing this you are going to encourage that. Even if you try to come up with language to streamline the conference report process, I still think this produces those problems. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the tax provision. This is one that is worthy of very good debate. Mr. Spratt wants to limit the number of tax beneficiaries from 100 to 10. Let me give you an example. We chose to do it the way we did it so we would go after tax pork, rifleshot tax policy, you know, this tax cut for this person, this tax entity, instead of tax policy. Let me just give you one example. The orphan drug tax credit. We have the orphan drug tax credit in tax law today because there are a lot of small diseases that do not have a lot of constituencies, that do not have a lot of people--lupus, Duchenne's disease, and you are not going to see pharmaceutical companies engaging in committing millions of dollars in research to cure such small diseases, but we want cures for these smaller diseases, these rare diseases. So we created the orphan drug tax credit. How many people utilize this orphan drug tax credit? Very few, surely not 100, maybe 3, 4 companies. Researchers will research a cure for a rare disease, but if they do the research, they qualify for the tax credit. That is tax policy. Fewer than 100 beneficiaries get it, but we wanted to have a tax incentive so that researchers will commit their dollars to researching and finding cures for rare diseases. That is just one example of how broadening the scope of this goes into tax policy. The goal of this is not to give the President the power to rewrite policy, to rewrite entitlement policy, to rewrite tax policy. The goal of the legislative line item vote is to give us the tool to go after pork, tax pork. Now, what we want to accomplish with this, Mr. Speaker, is to give us the tools to go after wasteful spending, wasteful direct spending, wasteful discretionary spending, and wasteful tax pork. The key thing is that we reserve the power. The Executive can give us the bill; the Executive, the President, can pull the pork out; but who makes the decision is Congress. Congress and Congress alone, the legislative branch, are the ones who execute the action. I think the compromise we have come up with, the base bill, is the right way to go. And the last point I will make is the gentleman reduces the deferral period to 30 days. Here is the problem with that. That means Congress can pass a huge omnibus appropriations bill in October, as we often do, and then leave for recess until January 20, when the President has the State of the Union address. He is out of session for 3 months and Congress cannot waive the deferral period. I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I will just rise to say that that is evidence of my point of order which PAYGO is outside of the germaneness of this bill. Earmark reform is outside the germaneness of the bill. It is on those grounds that I raise this point of order.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly raise a point of order to the motion to recommit on the grounds that the motion includes provisions that are not germane to the bill. On those grounds, that is why I raise the point of order.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I want to address a few of the concerns that have been mentioned by the other side of the aisle. First of all, this is a bipartisan bill. If you paid attention, a number of the speakers came to the floor from the other side of the well to speak in favor of this. Actually, three Democrats came to the floor in favor of this bill that we are considering right now, three Democrats I am proud to call friends and supporters and coauthors of this proposal. In fact, we took an amendment of Mr. Cuellar of Texas to improve this bill. Other speakers have said this gives too much power to the President. Well, let us just remember one thing: the President already has rescission authority today. Today, the President can rescind something, defer spending, and send it to Congress. Here is the problem: Congress just ignores these things. In fact, President Reagan sent $25 billion of rescissions to Congress, and they ignored every one of them. So we want to make that process work. We are taking the existing authority he has, making it actually shorter in time frame, and we are simply guaranteeing that we are going to vote on it. I think, if somebody sticks a wasteful pork barrel project like a $50 million rainforest museum from Iowa, a bridge to nowhere, or something like that in a bill in a conference report where we as Members of Congress have one choice, vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on the entire bill, then the President has a similar choice: sign or veto the entire bill. That is wrong. We ought to be able to vote on that $50 million rainforest museum. This gives us the chance to do that, and this means that we can't duck those votes. This is a bipartisan bill. It has been so bipartisan in the past that Mr. Spratt has offered very similar legislation. We got 173 Democrats on one of them, 174 on another. Mr. Stenholm and I offered a bill very similar to this 2 years ago; we got 45 Democrats on it. I hope that we will continue to get this bipartisan support that we had been getting. But more importantly, Mr. Speaker, the American people know we need every tool we can get our hands on to go after wasteful spending. That is why taxpayer watchdog groups are key on voting this bill. The American Conservative Union, the Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens Against Government Waste, the Club For Growth, Freedom Works, National Federation of Independent Businesses, National Taxpayer Union, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce all are key voting this vote as a key vote for the taxpayer. Other groups supporting this: ALEC, the American Taxpayer Alliance, Bond Market Association, Business Roundtable, Center for Individual Freedom, Concord Coalition, Association of Wholesale Distributors, National Restaurant Association, 60 Plus, Traditional Values. The list goes on and on. Mr. Speaker, the American people know we need this tool to go after wasteful spending, taxpayers need this tool so we can do this, and, more importantly, we need more transparency in our process here in Congress. We passed earmark reform so that Members of Congress have to defend their earmarks when they come to the floor of the House when we write these bills in the beginning. But a lot of this stuff gets inserted at the end of the process in the conference reports; that is why we need to have this deterrent. I think the success of this bill will be less in how much pork we get out of legislation that we line item veto out, and more in how much pork never gets put into legislation in the first place, because there will be an extra deterrent. A Member of Congress who wants to slip in some big piece of pork barrel spending that he probably couldn't otherwise justify will think twice, because he or she may have to come to the well of the House and the well of the other body to defend that pork barrel spending. This is good government. This is transparency. This is an added layer of accountability that is right for the taxpayer, and it is constitutional. It protects the prerogatives of the legislative branch. That is why I think this is a good bill. That is why I am pleased to call this a bipartisan bill. That is why I think we should strike this vote for the taxpayer. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``aye'' vote for this.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, given that my friend from Wisconsin voted for virtually the same bill 2 years ago when Charlie Stenholm and I had it on the floor, I hope we can count on his support again. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Minnesota will be happy to know that under the way this bill works, you cannot go after mandatory programs in the farm bill that already exist. So you cannot go back and take a commodity program out. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to respond to something that the gentleman from South Carolina said. He said under this bill we could go after mandatory programs like Social Security, Medicare, veterans benefits. Let me be very clear: you cannot with this program go after Social Security, Medicare and veterans benefits as we know it today. We are saying new programs. Why do we say it that way? Why new direct spending programs? There are 5,000-plus earmarks in the transportation bill just this last year. Why should that be taken off the table? If you did that, then the Bridge to Nowhere would be exempt from the line item veto. I think most people who know this stuff think the Bridge to Nowhere ought to be one of the things that the President would want to go after under the line item veto. We are talking about new programs, not the existing entitlement programs that we have come to know and enjoy for many of our constituents. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall). (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Texas, I would simply like to point out I think the gentleman from Maryland said we need to cut more spending. I agree. That is why we should pass this. In fact, the gentleman from Maryland voted for similar legislation that I offered with Charlie Stenholm 2 years ago and two expedited rescission bills that the gentleman from South Carolina authored in the past. So I hope we can enjoy your support this time around. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds to answer what the gentleman mentioned on tax cuts. The reason we go after tax rifle shots is we do not want to give the President the power of setting policy that Congress has. We are going after pork, tax pork, spending pork, not tax policy. That would be to abrogate our responsibility of setting policy to the executive branch, and we do not want to do that. That is why the bill was written as it is today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I just recently read a lecture from the most highly respected scholar on Middle East affairs and Islam in America, Bernard Lewis. He went through Osama bin Laden's original fatwa. He went through a lot of writings of al Qaeda back in the early to mid-1990s, and what they declared is very chilling. They declared that their war was going to be against the two superpowers at the time: the Soviet Union and America. They believed they defeated the USSR in Afghanistan. I would like to think peace through strength is what beat it here and the fact that communism did not work. But they think they beat it. Now they think they have one last enemy to beat before they can reach their caliphate from Spain to Indonesia: America. Mr. Speaker, the war on terror did not begin on 9/11. It began on 2/ 26. February 26, 1993, when they first hit us at the World Trade Center. Then in 1996, the Khobar Towers. Then in 1998 at our two embassies in Africa. Then in 2000, the USS Cole. Then in 2001, 9/11. Mr. Speaker, we are at war. They have declared this war against us long ago. The sooner we realize it, the better we are. The best way to win this war is to play away games and not home games. The good news on this front is we have not had another 9/11 since 9/ 11. We have not had a major terrorist attack here in America. If Iraq becomes democratic, if Iraq becomes free, they lose. They cannot win and manifest their distorted belief. They want to have a world like what we saw on display in Afghanistan, the Taliban, throughout the entire Middle East. If democracy and freedom can persist, if it can take root, if it can succeed, as it is succeeding in many parts of the Arab world, the terrorists lose. And the most important thing in all of this that all of us should have in the front of our minds is will our children grow up in America with the fear of terrorism in the front of their mind or will it be a distant memory in history? I grew up in Jamesville, Wisconsin, as a happy kid. I want my kids to grow up in Jamesville, Wisconsin, with the same kind of happiness, not with the fear of terrorism. This is a global war, a war we have to win, a war that only America through its leadership can win for the rest of the world. The sooner we wake up to that, the better off we are and the more peaceful life we can leave to our children. That is why our troops overseas are doing a great job. That is why we have to see this thing through. The terrorists think we are weak because of our freedoms. They think that we do not have the stomach. They think they can turn our public opinion. That is not true. Let's prove that that is not true, and let's win this war on terror.