Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I was unavoidably delayed and missed rollcall vote No. 140. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay''.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to do so, but let me first thank my colleagues from Georgia, Indiana and Kentucky for talking about this issue tonight. This is one of the most important issues facing our country, and it faces all generations; our seniors' generation, our worker generation, our children's generation and our grandchildren's generation. We have one problem that my colleagues have done such a good job of talking about, which is the insolvency problem, that when we go from 3.3 workers paying for one retiree to 2 workers paying for one retiree, or put another way, when we go from 40 million seniors to 80 million seniors within one generation, it is bringing the system to insolvency. But the real problem starts not just in 2017 but in 3 years, in 2008, when the oldest baby boomers begin retiring. That is when the revenues coming into Social Security start going down. And in 12 years, we no longer have enough money coming in to pay off all the benefits. But there is one more problem that is coming to Social Security that we also want to fix, in addition to making the program solvent, and that is we want to make this program generationally fair, and it is not right now. Take me, for example. My mom is 70 years old and she gets about a 5 percent rate of return on her payroll taxes that she paid when she worked. It is a good deal for current seniors. They are getting a relatively good market rate of return on their payroll taxes, 5 percent for a 70-year-old; even higher for an 80-year-old. But for current workers today, based upon the payroll taxes they are now paying, they are getting anywhere from 1 to 1.5 percent. The average worker today gets a 1.25 percent rate of return on their payroll taxes. Well, when you take a look at my children, our children's generation, I have three little toddlers, right now, under the current system, they are scheduled to get today a negative 1 percent rate of return on their payroll taxes. Now, why is that important? I would say it is important because 80 percent of the American worker pays more in payroll taxes than they even pay in income taxes. It is the biggest tax most Americans pay. When Americans take 12.4 percent of their wages and put it into this program and it is a program that they are not even getting a fair share on, we have to ask ourselves can we not do better? Can people get a better retirement benefit from Social Security if they could only grow their money, this 12.4 percent coming out of their paychecks, at a better rate of return, like current seniors are getting? That is why when we talk about saving Social Security, we want to do more than what Congress has traditionally done in the past. What have they traditionally done in the past? Raised taxes or reduced benefits. Specifically, Congress has raised payroll taxes 22 times since this program began. The payroll tax rate was 2 percent in 1937. Today, it is 12.4 percent. So we could save this program with solvency by just raising taxes again or reducing benefits. But if that is what we do, then that 1.25 percent that current workers are getting, and that negative 1 percent that our children will be getting, will just get much worse. When you take a look at the pension plans around America, if you take a look at the Thrift Savings Plan that we here in Congress and other Federal employees have, which got us an average of 7.67 percent over the last 10 years; or if you take a look at most of the union pension plans, the Taft-Hartley plans, that got between 7 and 10 percent over the last 10 years; or if you look at the AARP's mutual funds, they have 35 bond and stock mutual funds that got on average about 7 percent over the last 10 years; and you look at the pension system, you say we can do better for workers today. Why are today's workers only going to get a little over a 1 percent rate of return on their payroll tax dollars when every other pension fund, every other savings system out there does about 5 or 6 or 6 times that? So that is what we are taking a look at. What I do in my bill is give people a choice. For those people under the age of 55, if they want to, they can dedicate a portion of their payroll taxes to their personal savings accounts. And we are not talking about privatizing Social Security. We are not even talking about partially privatizing Social Security. Because to privatize the program would be to let someone take a chunk of their payroll taxes and go outside the system, take it to their stock broker and do whatever they want with it. That is not what is being debated here. That is not what is on the table. That is not what is being discussed. What we are talking about, whether you look at the Ryan-Sununu bill or any other bill in Congress, or the President's framework, what we are talking about is personal accounts that are inside of Social Security; that are run, overseen, managed, and regulated by Social Security, not Wall Street firms outside of the system. The vision that we have is to give people a choice of having a personal retirement account inside of Social Security, run by Social Security, just like the Thrift Savings Plan that we here in Congress have where we can get a better rate of return on our dollars. That is what we are planning on doing. Now, the great thing that you can accomplish with personal retirement accounts is it can help bring solvency to the system and it can reduce the need to raise taxes or reduce future benefits. So what I would say is, the most humane way to save Social Security for future generations, to make it fair for our kids so they can get a similar retirement benefit like our seniors are getting today, and to bring the system into solvency and preserve the Social Security safety net, which we are all interested in continuing, personal retirement accounts are the most humane way to save the system. Because without them, then you have to resort to steep tax increases or benefit reductions. If we want to fix this problem right now, tomorrow, and just do it on taxes, what the Social Security trustees, what the actuaries tell us, is the payroll tax rate would have to go up 50 percent tomorrow, to 18.6 percent. So when you are looking at the fact that 80 percent of us in this country, the biggest tax we pay is payroll taxes, and you want to raise that 50 percent to solve this problem, we say no to that. When you take a look at the benefits, if you want to do this just on benefits, we would have to reduce future benefits by 40 percent just to solve this problem for the three generations we have. But with personal retirement accounts, you can prevent those kinds of painful options and give people a chance of making their money work harder for them so they can actually accumulate real wealth and get a better benefit when they retire. The added benefit of a personal retirement account also is that it is your property. It is part of the individual's property. The government cannot take it away from you. It is the ultimate lockbox. Because unlike today, where the government spends all the Social Security surpluses, raids the trust fund, the government cannot take your personal account away from you. When I talk to constituents, one thing that surprises them so much is that they think that they have a personal retirement account already. When they get their statement in the mail from Social Security, it says here is what you are entitled to, here is what you paid into it. People think there is an account with their name on it with money in it waiting for them. That is not the case. Court case after court case, from Fleming v. Nester in 1960, the Supreme Court has continuously told us no American has a legal or a contractual right to their Social Security benefit. The only guarantee any American has to their Social Security benefit is whatever the 535 politicians in Congress in any given year decide it is going to be. But with a personal retirement account, that is your money. That is your property. It is surrounded by private property rights that the government cannot take from you. If you die, it goes to your family. It does not go back to the government. I take a look at my personal situation from my own life, because our lives shape our values, which shape what we do here. My father died when I was 16 years old. He was 55. I was a recipient of the safety net. The survivor benefits that I got from Social Security helped me pay for college and finance my education. My mom at the time had a choice to make. She could either keep the payroll taxes that she paid when she worked, and my mom was a stay-at-home mom for a number of years, but also worked at a hospital. So she paid a lot of payroll taxes. But she had a choice when my dad died: Keep what she paid in her payroll taxes or not, and/or keep what my dad had paid in his payroll taxes. Not both. She got a $250 death benefit and then she had to give away all that money she paid in payroll taxes throughout her working career. She had to give that all back into the system and get the benefit based on my dad's payroll taxes. Under the personal retirement account system, especially for women who outlive their husbands, especially for any spouse who outlives the other spouse, not only would my mom be able to keep the payroll taxes she had always paid over those years for herself, she would also get my dad's personal retirement account on top of it. So there are a lot of problems in the current system that I think a personal retirement account fixes, not least of which is inheritability. You actually own the fruits of your own labor and you own the account that you have in your name. The great thing that occurs in society by fixing Social Security this way, instead of going to the old-fashioned way of cutting benefits or raising taxes, is you broadly decentralize the concentration of wealth in America through personal retirement accounts. Mr. Speaker, what do I mean when I say that. Under the Ryan-Sununu bill with accounts that we are proposing, where we have accounts and we keep the safety net of Social Security intact, we do not reduce benefits or raise taxes. According to the Social Security actuary, workers will have $7 trillion in their personal retirement accounts within 15 years. That is $7 trillion that every willing worker in America will have in their name as part of their property that they otherwise would not have. That is $7 trillion that would have otherwise gone to Washington will instead go into workers' savings. Half of America today is the investor class. Half of the households own stocks and bonds. What that also means is the other half of America does not. The other half of America are not members of the investor class. With personal retirement accounts which come from the existing retirement accounts that workers already pay, the biggest tax that they pay, every willing worker will be an owner in our society. They will own a piece of America's free enterprise system. They will have a stake in our society, they will be an owner of real assets and real wealth. That is a good thing. I would like to think from the left or right, Republican or Democrat in Congress, we can agree on a couple of notions, that to decentralize the concentration of wealth in America and to narrow the gap between rich and poor would be a good thing to do. That is exactly what would happen when we have personal retirement accounts as part of the plan to save Social Security. That is essentially what our bill does. If Members have any other questions on the specific mechanics, I will be happy to go into them. I thank the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) for talking about this issue. If we delay like the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola) said, every year we delay, according to the trustees, not the Republicans or the Democrats, but the trustees, it is another $600 billion of debt that we go into the hole. We owe it to our kids and grandkids not only to make this program solvent, but to give them a choice to have a system so they get an actual decent retirement benefit when they retire.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Also, there are some fiscal issues that we need to talk about. There are some real misnomers out in the press. The trustees of Social Security have told us that the long-term debt, the unfunded debt we would owe to Social Security, that we would have to put aside today to keep it going into the future, is $11.1 trillion. Add to that the $1.7 trillion in unfunded IOUs we have in the Social Security trust fund, and it is not an asset, it is a debt, that is over $12 trillion we are short of money we would need to keep Social Security going at the current level where my kids get a negative 1 percent rate of return. If we come up with a plan to save the system that has a personal retirement account as a part of it, and any borrowing or cost associated with transitioning from the current system over to a saved system, that cost is not new debt. Many people say that the Bush plan costs $2 trillion. Well, that is not true; but, nevertheless, because there are not enough specifics to even analyze that plan, it is a framework, but let us take that at face value. The Bush plan costs $2 trillion to have personal retirement accounts that are voluntary. To bring the system into permanent solvency, $2 trillion wipes out that $12 trillion in debt. So if we are talking about debt that is incurred to save the system, that is not new debt; that is taking debt that is hanging out there on top of the American people, recognizing it and paying it off today, just like you refinance your mortgage but paying it off at a smaller digestible level, and leaving the country debt-free with a better Social Security system that is guaranteed and gives people better benefits when they retire. It is a really important point that I think is missed a lot in the debate up here.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, only that I think it is very important that we come together, bring our ideas to the table, and fix this problem. We cannot keep kicking the can down the road. We owe too much to our kids, and just the numbers are so overwhelming. When we in one generation are going to double the number of retirees we have in this country, followed by fewer workers paying into the system, it is a system that cannot sustain itself. That is why we have got to fix this. Social Security, I would argue, is the most successful and important program ever devised and created by the Federal Government. It has done wonders keeping people out of poverty. It is too important to let it fail and fall because of partisan politics. We have got to fix it for our kids and grandkids.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce new legislation that will ensure Social Security lives up to its promise for all Americans, now and in the future. My legislation, the Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act of 2005, will give all workers access to a more prosperous retirement through the establishment of personal savings accounts within the current Social Security system. This voluntary proposal maintains a strong safety net guaranteeing that workers would receive at least as much as Social Security promises under current law, without changing survivors' or disability benefits. Furthermore, this plan achieves full and permanent solvency for Social Security, and reduces debt and payroll taxes over the long term. Mr. Speaker, the 2005 Social Security Trustees Report tells us that beginning in 2017, Social Security will begin to pay out more in benefits than it receives in tax revenues. Then; in 2041, the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted. All analysts point to changing demographics as the primary factor driving Social Security into a deeper hole every year. In 1950, there were 16 workers supporting each retiree. Now, with the number of workers supporting each recipient projected to fall from 3.3 today to 2.3 in 2025, the mission is very clear: we must act now to strengthen and sustain Social Security. By establishing personal accounts within the Social Security system, we can give every American worker the choice of building a nest egg for his or her retirement. With personal retirement accounts, every worker will become a laborer and a capitalist earning a much higher rate of return on their payroll tax dollars than the current system can currently offer them. Furthermore, I firmly believe that there is no better way to bridge the wealth gap and decentralize the concentration of wealth in America than to adopt personal accounts like the ones I am proposing. Mr. Speaker, this legislation not only gives workers a better deal for their retirement, but it is also a blueprint for permanent solvency for Social Security, long-term debt reduction and payroll tax relief for all American workers. This plan works to help control the growth rate of government spending and make sure the short-term Social Security surpluses are devoted to strengthening Social Security instead of other spending. Most importantly, this plan gives every worker the chance to have real wealth and become an owner in our free enterprise system.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the sixtieth anniversary of VE Day, we must remember and honor the men and women of America's armed forces who secured victory in World War II at a great cost. They were regular citizens thrust into an extraordinary conflict at a pivotal point in world history, and freedom's future across the globe depended on their courage and character. They sacrificed and endured much in order to defeat tyranny and preserve liberty--overcoming formidable enemies, the elements, and undoubtedly their fears. The freedoms we enjoy today are their legacy, and we must cherish and defend this legacy as they did. I have been very fortunate to meet quite a few of those in Southeastern Wisconsin who served during World War II, and every time I speak with them it is an inspiration. These heroes in our midst are a constant reminder of the tremendous difference that one person can make in this world. Because they confronted evil and risked their lives to liberate occupied lands, countless individuals around the world were able to grow up enjoying the blessings of freedom, and America's land and liberty were preserved. Later this week, some of these veterans will be commemorating the sixtieth anniversary of victory in World War II at a special ceremony in Franklin, Wisconsin. They should know that America has not forgotten their bravery and how they and those fighting beside them saved the free world. We will forever be indebted to them for their service to our country in its hour of need, and we will continue to draw strength from this example as we fight terrorism and other threats today and in the future.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time. I want to talk about a very important issue that should appeal to all Republicans and Democrats in this House, and that is gas prices. One provision that is included in this bill, the Boutique Fuel Reduction Act, is very, very important to reducing the price spikes that we are experiencing. Let me just explain. This map right here of America looks like a piece of modern art. It shows you all of the different fuels we have running around America. Because of the Clean Air Act, a very good law, we never thought about having a Federal fuel system, so today we have 18 different base blends of gasoline; throw the different octanes in there, we have 45 different fuels. So we have a full distribution system, national in scope; we have pipelines and refineries that are meant to put one fuel out there for America that was built in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, which was the last time that it was upgraded. Now, when we go from winter blend to summer blend gasoline, we throw all of these different blends into the system. What that does for all of our consumers, our constituents, is it makes those boutique fuels short in supply and therefore high in price. It makes the system which is running at full capacity very vulnerable to price spikes if there is any hiccup in supply. This map of 45 different blends is a result. The current ozone nonattainment areas, the blue areas on this map, 217 counties. But now with the new 8-hour ozone rule which has been released last year, takes effect in 2 years, 474 counties in America will now be out of attainment with respect to the ozone rule. That is the red counties. That means we go from 217 counties to 474 counties that will have to select new blends of gasoline. What this bill does is it says let us get some common sense to this system. Let us have the Department of Energy and the EPA figure out a Federal fuel system so we can maintain our clean air standards, but standardize our fuel blends so we can stabilize our supply of gasoline and therefore stabilize our price of gasoline. If there is a problem in supply overnight, an immediate problem like we had in Arizona last year, Wisconsin on a couple of times with a pipeline break or a refinery fire, the EPA has waiver authority on a 20-day basis to fix that. The second thing we do is we cap the amount of fuel blends so the problem does not get any worse now that we are running to the 8-hour rules. We can have clean air and cheap gas at the same time, Mr. Speaker. That is what this bill does. I urge adoption of this rule and this bill.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time. I just wanted to come and pay tribute to this legislation and speak in favor of this tribute to Bob Matsui, and it is very fitting legislation to designate this courthouse. I wanted to speak personally as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, as a younger member of the Committee on Ways and Means, who had the opportunity to serve with Bob Matsui for 4 years. I have not served with Bob for the decades that many have in the past, but the Bob Matsui that I got to know in the Committee on Ways and Means was a very special man and person. Bob Matsui was intellectually on the top of his game and was one of the best intellectual debaters and sparring partners we had, especially when it came to the issue of Social Security. My favorite kind of people in the world and in this body are those who are passionate about their beliefs, whether or not we agree on those beliefs, and Bob Matsui had a great lesson for those of us younger Members and it was that you can be as strong and tough in debate when the microphone's on, but when it is turned off, you can be good human beings to one another. Bob Matsui was a very kind gentleman. I was half his age, about the age of his kids, and I always just felt that he gave me sort of a mentoring-ship kind of relationship and role. Because every time I had a conversation with Bob Matsui, he had this nice glint in his eye, and he was always a person offering a kind word of advice or a kind word of friendship. That is something that I do not think we have enough of in this institution. It is something that I thought was a great lesson on how to conduct yourself among your colleagues, especially across the aisle. So I am really sad to see Bob leave us here, but I think this is an extremely fitting tribute. I wish that more of us conducted ourselves in the way that he did, and I just want to lend my word of support to this fine legislation for just an outstanding and fine man who taught us a lot on how we can be civil with one another.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation, along with my colleague Congressman Ben Cardin, that would allow charitable and educational organizations to make grants to fraternities, sororities, and other collegiate organizations to provide housing and student facilities to the same extent that tax-exempt colleges and universities may provide such facilities for students. We introduced this legislation in the 108th Congress and it enjoyed wide bipartisan support. By way of background, taxpayers may generally deduct contributions to nonprofit educational organizations (i.e., educational organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (``Code'')) such as colleges or universities. These colleges and universities may expend their funds (including donated funds) on student facilities such as dormitories, dining halls, study areas, libraries, computers, laundry facilities, physical fitness facilities, and social or recreational areas without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status. State and private colleges and universities do not, and cannot, provide all of the housing and related student facilities necessary for their student bodies. Collegiate organizations such as fraternities, sororities, and other student associations (e.g., Muslim Students Association, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and Hillel) fill a large part of the collegiate housing gap. Fraternities and sororities alone provide housing for more than 250,000 students each year. These student associations take on significant financial burdens in order to provide student housing without cost to affiliated colleges and universities. Fraternities, sororities, and student associations provide collegiate housing through tax-exempt organizations, but their exemption comes under Code section 501(c)(7), with the result that direct contributions to these organizations are not deductible. However, educational organizations established to benefit these fraternities, sororities, and other student associations may qualify under Code section 501(c)(3) to receive deductible contributions. The current IRS position is that it will not give a tax-exemption ruling to these educational organizations unless they limit student facility grants to those that are solely for educational use (with exceptions for minor social or recreational use). According to this IRS position, a fraternity foundation, for example, may make grants to a fraternity for the construction (or for annual operating expenses) in a fraternity house of a library, study area, computer area, or instructional area. The fraternity foundation may also make grants for computers, computer desks, and chairs, if similar to what is provided by the specific college with which the fraternity is associated, and for Internet wiring, if the specific college also provides Internet wiring. However, the IRS says that fraternity foundations may not make student facility grants for the construction or operation of sleeping quarters, dining areas, laundry facilities, or dedicated social or recreational areas (such as physical fitness facilities or equipment), or hallways or rooms used for both educational and other purposes. Under the current IRS position, a charitable organization could not make a grant to a section 501(c)(7) collegiate housing organization (or to an affiliated section 501(c)(2) or (c)(7) organization) to provide fire safety upgrades unless those upgrades were limited to areas that are solely for educational use. However, fire safety upgrades will not provide necessary protection unless they are made throughout an entire building. It has been estimated that just the cost of installing sprinklers in fraternity and sorority housing is over $300 million nationwide. There is no policy reason for distinguishing between the types of student facilities that may be provided by a tax-exempt college and those that may be provided by another tax-exempt charitable or educational organization to a collegiate organization for the benefit of individuals who are full-time college students. The current IRS position, which we believe is an incorrect interpretation of the law, puts collegiate organizations at a significant disadvantage in obtaining the funds necessary to provide or maintain housing and infrastructure, including the funds necessary to provide fire safety upgrades. I believe that clarifying that tax-exempt charitable or educational organizations may make collegiate housing and infrastructure grants will encourage private sector contributions to address student housing needs, thus relieving a burden that would otherwise fall on financially strapped colleges and universities. Accordingly, this bill provides that charitable and educational organizations may make grants to collegiate housing organizations (including affiliate organizations holding title to property) for the construction or operation of collegiate housing and infrastructure facilities that are of the type tax-exempt colleges are permitted to provide for their students, including, but not limited to, sleeping quarters, fire safety equipment and upgrades, dining areas, social and recreational areas, study areas, libraries, and computers and related furniture and wiring. I urge our colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will benefit the U.S. automotive industry and help provide jobs for Wisconsin's manufacturing sector. Wisconsin has seen a net loss of more than 71,000 manufacturing jobs over the last five years, which is very troubling for a state with the second highest number of manufacturing employees per capita in the nation. Although the economy has improved significantly since mid-2003, many of our lost manufacturing jobs have not been recovered. Congress must continue to work to help our manufacturers remain competitive in the global marketplace. Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI), a Fortune 500 company headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, employs 2,500 workers in the state and thousands more throughout the country. As the world's largest producer of automotive interiors, JCI works to develop and produce seating systems, instrument panels, door systems, overhead systems, and automotive electronics. They are a leader in the production of electronic telecommunications systems for vehicles and have developed innovative voice recognition systems that are used by the major manufacturers in the U.S. automotive industry, The microphones covered in this legislation are a key component of JCI's electronic telecommunications systems, However, they are not produced domestically and JCI must import them subject to a 4.9 percent tariff rate. By temporarily eliminating this tariff, this bill will reduce JCI's production costs and help them remain competitive against international competition. In addition, this bill will benefit U.S. automotive manufacturers who rely on JCI for their telecommunications systems, consumers who will pay reduced prices for these products, and hard-working Americans who are employed in the manufacturing industry. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to pass this legislation and help U.S. manufacturing.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I briefly just want to describe what this bill does. I, along with the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson), introduced H.R. 5394, which will correct an unintended new tax on arrows. The American Jobs Creation Act closed the loophole that allowed imported arrows to avoid the excise tax paid on domestically produced arrows. Unfortunately, the IRS identified an unintended consequence that will require 8,000 retailers to collect and remit a small part of this excise tax. The provision of this bill designed to protect the double taxation of arrows inadvertently moves the incidence of a very small part of the tax on arrows from manufacturers to retailers. This language will require every retailer to determine the difference between the tax paid on the components that they buy and the tax due on arrows that they assemble and sell. Therefore, 8,000 retailers will be required to file and remit the excise tax quarterly for an amount of about $100,000. Clearly, Congress did not intend to impose a new tax on thousands of small businesses and retailers. This legislation fixes that. It amends the archery excise provision to impose a flat fee on the first sale of all arrow shafts. This legislation protects thousands of retailers by keeping the incidence of the tax on manufacturers, not on retailers; treats domestic and foreign manufacturers equally; and protects the Federal Aid in Wildlife Fund. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I first want to just thank my colleague from North Dakota, a wonderful State I have enjoyed hunting in, and his archers, I think, will be pleased with his support today. We are finally getting this thing fixed. We thought the tax experts figured it out the last time. That was not necessarily the case. We have got this fix in place. So, again, we are not going to be pushing jobs overseas. We are not going to be draining precious resources from the Pittman-Robertson Fund. We are fixing that loophole.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of H.R. 5394, the bill under consideration.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5394) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the taxation of arrow components.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. And I want to thank the chairman for his masterful work in bringing this bill to the floor and getting it done. This bill is designed to make our companies more competitive overseas and keep jobs here at home. There are many examples throughout this where we fix a lot of problems in our international tax laws. One example that has been unfairly ridiculed here tonight is bows and arrows. Here is what we do here: current law, we tax domestic manufacturers from making arrows and we do not tax foreign manufacturers. So what happens? We lay people off in America. The companies go overseas, and they bring their products in tax-free. Is that good for America? Is that good for jobs? That is a problem that is being fixed in this bill, as are so many other problems. The point of this legislation is we are finally getting rid of these tariffs that are hitting a lot of our domestic manufacturers, a lot of our domestic industries, and costing jobs; and we are making American jobs more competitive in the international marketplace. That is a good thing, especially in this tough time of global competition. I thank the chairman for doing this. And what we are doing is fixing up these ugly laws and making our businesses more competitive in the international marketplace and saving American jobs.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome Pastor Dan Remus of the First Assembly of God Church in Kenosha to the floor of the House today. This is a very special moment for all of us. Pastor Dan began serving the First Assembly in 1980 as their youth pastor. He became the senior associate pastor in 1985 and the senior pastor in 1997. And yes, as you can see, he is a young man. The Church of the First Assembly of God supports many community efforts: homeless shelters, prison ministries, shelters for unwed mothers. Two of the ways the church reaches out to the community are school supply hand-outs to the inner city and a Queen For a Day program, a ministry to single moms who are taken in and pampered for a day of women's activities. I have had the privilege of joining Pastor Dan in worship at the First Assembly of God, and I have got to say it is a wonderful church. It is a church that is growing. Their average attendance at their ceremonies and sermons are about 1,900 people. It is a church that is growing. They have about 790 children in their school. The First Assembly is a very, very warm place that brings with open arms an invitation to all people to enjoy and worship Jesus Christ our Saviour. One of the things that I enjoy so much about Pastor Dan's church are the great productions they put on at Easter and the 4th of July. It is something that many people from all around come to enjoy. Most importantly, he has been married to his wife Alexia for 25 years. He has 3 children, Heidi, Heather, and Danny, Jr. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity, and I want to thank Pastor Dan for traveling from Kenosha, Wisconsin to join us and give us such an uplifting prayer this morning.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, what an honor it is to be able to congratulate Tami Doetch, a teacher at Wilson Elementary School in my hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, for being recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as a No Child Left Behind American Star of Teaching. Every day, Tami Doetch goes to school committed to helping students learn to read and master the building blocks that will form the foundation of their education. She teaches third- and fourth-graders and has put a lot of time and energy into helping English language learners. By using effective teaching techniques to open up the world of reading to her students, she is giving them the tools to achieve their dreams, not to mention countless hours of reading enjoyment throughout their lives. Tami Doetch has also taken a leadership role, going above and beyond her work in the classroom. She oversaw the incorporation of the Harcourt Brace Reading Program into instruction at Wilson Elementary. And she has led tutoring and after-school reading programs. For many of us, our most challenging teachers are the ones we remember most fondly because they pushed us to think and taught us lessons that we still rely on today. I have no doubt that Tami Doetch's students will remember her fondly and gratefully for her dedication to their reading instruction and overall education.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. This debate is about one basic thing. Do you think the money coming into the Federal Government is the people's money or the government's money? Number one, what are we talking about today? What we are talking about is whether we should keep taxes at the levels they are today. Should we keep the child tax credit where it is? Should we keep the marriage penalty relief where it is by and large? And what they are saying on the other side is, okay, if we want to keep these taxes from going up, we got to raise more taxes. So what we are looking at here is an emphasis. Is it the people's money or is it the government's money? We believe this is the people's money. We believe most importantly that people ought to be able to keep more of their paycheck in their pockets. And what we get from the other side is, to pay for this, let us raise taxes. So we are saying, to prevent these taxes from going up, we will raise taxes over here. What we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is accelerate the policies and keep the policies that have been working. Letting people keep more of their own hard earned money has been good for the economy and good for the individuals and good for the families of America. Just take a look at the fact that over the last year where we have had lower tax rates we have brought in more revenues. That is right. We have got $56 billion in higher revenues this year, the deficit has gone down, under the lower tax rates that we are paying today, than a year ago under higher tax rates. Why? Because we have better economic growth, because we have more jobs being produced in this economy, because more people are paying taxes because they have a job to pay taxes in. So why would we want to go down the road of raising taxes to keep these tax levels where they are, to kill the goose that is laying the golden egg that is giving us this economic recovery that is now underway. Point number one. Point number two, this is already in the President's budget. The President's budget, which is to slash the deficit in half within 5 years, accommodates this policy. I wish we had a budget resolution in full force which is what we passed in the House which froze domestic spending, met our priorities overseas in fighting the war on terrorism, in protecting the homeland and froze domestic spending. Unfortunately, the other body failed to do this. So the question before us on this rule is do you think that the middle class families ought to be able to keep more of their own money? Do you think that these tax extenders which would go away and raise taxes on the economy and raise taxes on businesses should come into law or not? Or should we keep these tax increases from hitting the economy? Should we have keep these taxes from being raised on families, and is the only way to do that to just raise taxes on someone else? No. Let us put the emphasis where it ought to be, on spending. Let us put the emphasis on where it ought to be, on letting people keep more hard earned money in their paychecks, in their wallets. Let us not put the emphasis on continuing to raise taxes. There is a fundamental, philosophical difference between the two parties. You are seeing it on display here on the House floor. We just fundamentally disagree. We believe that people ought to be able to keep more of their own hard-earned money. It is a belief we have. And that belief has translated time and time again, under Jack Kennedy, under Calvin Coolidge, under Ronald Reagan, and, yes, now under this current President, to produce better economic growth, better economic policy and, yes, more revenues. That is what is happening today. Let us keep the taxes low. Let us prevent the families have having tax increases. Let us not raise taxes. Let us keep them low. I urge adoption of this rule.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. First of all, this concern was already addressed in this plan design. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) says this is going to have a huge adverse selection, that all of the wealthy and all of the healthy Federal employees are going to run to these health savings accounts, and we are going to have a death spiral in the Federal employee health benefits situation. Number one, all of the data that is coming out that is bearing fruit from the imposition of HSAs are proving that to be untrue. What we are finding out is the opposite is happening. Older folks and people with more health risk profiles are those who are buying health insurance. Mr. Chairman, 42 percent of the people who have bought HSAs this year, according to eHealthInsurance, are people who did not have insurance. Fifty-six percent of the people who bought HSAs are people over the age of 40 years old. We are finding that this is a good tool for people who are the very people who are vulnerable in our system. But more importantly, just in case there was concern that there was any legitimacy to this claim, the folks at OPM devised this system so that the premiums are basically the same as any other premium, so that they do not have a big, tiered premium, so that they have a huge discount on these higher deductible HSA plans versus other traditional plans within the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, so they will not have that drain. But more importantly, what this amendment does is it denies Federal employees choices. It takes one product that they now have as a choice, an option, and say they have got to take it or leave it for 3 years; for 3 years this is all they can have. They cannot participate in open season like they always could, like the other people in the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, but it does not apply these limits to the rest of the programs. So we are saying to all these Federal employees we have this new option, a choice, with premiums very similar to all the other options and choices. They can have it, but they have got to take it for 3 years. That is denying flexibility and choice that we have come to enjoy and appreciate in the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan. I urge rejection of this amendment. Adverse selection is not occurring with these products.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Chairman, I want to address just the main criticism the gentleman from Virginia just mentioned. Two things. He says adverse selection, which means healthy and wealthy people will leave other health care plans and premiums will go up for everybody else. Point number one. The Office of Personnel Management took this concern very seriously. So when they constructed this new health savings account option within the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, an additional option for Federal employees, they designed the premium so that that would not happen. Specifically, Federal employees would pay $42.25 every 2 weeks for the Mail Handlers high deductible plan compared to $45.16 for the standard coverage, an insignificant difference of $2.81 for every 2 weeks. For family coverage, the difference would be 11 cents. These very small differences in premiums will ensure that healthy employees are not attracted to HSAs by their premium. So the concern of the gentleman, which is a concern, was already addressed by the OPM. But one more point and the second point is this. All of the data on adverse selection has been coming back and none of it has been true. This was a concern that we were very concerned about. We want to make sure that the healthy and wealthy were not fleeing traditional health care plans, leaving them in jeopardy, raising premiums for other people. Since these plans have been offered since January and believe me, Mr. Chairman, they have been really proliferating, the data is showing us the opposite has occurred. The data is showing us that sicker, older people are being more attracted to health savings accounts. A couple of statistics. Assurant Health Care Plan, the leading provider of these in America, happens to be located in Milwaukee; 43 percent of their HSA applicants did not have any prior coverage at all. Forty-three percent of the people who bought these HSAs were uninsured. Thirty-two percent of HSA applicants had not had coverage for at least 6 months prior to enrollment. Half of all HSA applicants had incomes under $35,000. That is from eHealthInsurance, the major clearinghouse of all HSA products, the big Web site you go to to buy an HSA. Half of all their applicants earned under $35,000. EHealthInsurance again, the clearinghouse, 46 percent of HSA purchasers have family incomes less than 50 grand. We are seeing that lower income workers and families are going toward HSAs and older, less healthy people are going toward HSAs. So the data is showing that that is not true.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, just three points need to be made about this amendment. Point number one, this is an option from which Federal employees can choose. Why deprive them of this additional choice? They do not want the product, they do not have to have it. Why take it away from them? Point number two, just in case these adverse selection concerns are valid, that is why OPM designed this product with identical premiums so it does not occur. So they already addressed the concern just in case there is any adverse selection that occurs out there. But now what we are seeing from the data is that adverse selection not only is not happening. The opposite is happening. Lower-income, older, sicker people are buying health savings accounts. The data we get every day is disproving this notion of adverse selection. But just in case OPM designed this so that the premium is virtually identical to the rest of the premiums so that there is a safety valve, an insurance policy, to make sure that those concerns are not validated, do not manifest themselves. Do not take this option away from 8 million families. I urge a vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Janesville Performing Arts Center on its grand opening and spotlight this exciting new addition to Janesville, Wisconsin. Today the Janesville Performing Arts Center opens its doors--and opens a new chapter of the life of historic Janesville High School on Main Street. The center will give our area's performers a wonderful new stage for their creative energies and serve as a resource for people of all ages throughout our community. Besides providing a terrific venue for local arts groups to showcase their talent and skill, the Janesville Performing Arts Center will bring new opportunities for entertainment to everyone in our region. The grand opening of Janesville's first community performing arts center is a cause for celebration throughout our area and especially for those who have worked so hard to make this center a reality.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I will just briefly pause and say, having a surplus with Morocco actually helps us with our trade deficit surplus figure because it adds to the surplus side of it. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pause for a moment and thank those who made this possible. I would like to thank those negotiators at the U.S. Trade Representative who worked long and hard hours with the Moroccans to make this agreement possible. I would like to thank our committee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas); our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane); and also I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), who spearheaded this through committee and here in Congress. This is a great product. This is a great thing. Now, specifically, why is this beneficial to our constituents? Why is this good for America? Well, number one, manufacturing, a very important sector to our economy especially in my home State of Wisconsin. This is a great deal for manufacturing. This gets rid of the tariffs on our manufacturing goods going to Morocco. Number two, and even more important, agriculture. For every $1 of imports we take from Morocco in imports, we export $10. This is a great agreement for agriculture, especially since the Europeans, who enjoy a 50 percent higher trade flow advantage with Morocco than we have at the present time, do not have an agreement with Morocco on agriculture. Let me say it another way. Morocco and Europe trade a lot with each other, 50 percent more than we do with Morocco. That is going to change with this agreement, thankfully; but the Europeans do not have an agriculture agreement with Morocco. We will, and that means we will sell even more agricultural products to Morocco. That is a great thing. We have a trade surplus with Morocco. They are a great trading partner. This is good for jobs. It is good for manufacturing. It is good for agriculture; but Mr. Speaker, there is a broader vision here. There is a broader purpose for all of this. This is part of the President's MEFTI plan. This is part of the Middle Eastern Free Trade Initiative. What is that initiative? That initiative is to recognize we need to play a constructive role in the Middle East; that in the war on terror, the most important aspect, long-term vision of that war on terror is improving our understanding and our relations with moderate Muslim countries, with the Arab world. This accomplishes this. We have 10 TIFAs in place, 10 trade and investment framework agreements in place, throughout the Gulf, throughout Northern Africa, to engage in discussion and dialogue with those countries to help bring them up to the rules of democracy, rules of free enterprise, enforceable contracts, the rule of law, women's right to vote, open societies. This is what these trade agreements produce. So not only do we produce trade agreements like this Moroccan agreement, which is good for jobs in America, we produce political reforms by engaging in a partnership with those in the Middle East who want democracy and want openness. Because of these agreements and because of the role we play in the world, we serve as a catalyst to getting these countries to open their societies. Here is one example with the Moroccan agreement. Because of this trade agreement, Morocco passed a great piece of legislation in their constitution and their law for labor standards. They have been trying to do this for 20 years. For 20 years labor groups in Morocco have been trying to get the right to collectively bargain, a shorter workweek, better laws to protect against child labor. Those things are the law of the land in Morocco because of this agreement. So what we are doing with this broad initiative, through trade investment framework agreements, which lead to these free trade agreements like we have with Jordan and Bahrain and now Morocco, what this accomplishes is bringing these nations into a partnership of democracy, of freedom, of openness and prosperity. That is how we end up improving the lives of people in the Middle East, and that at the end of the day, and I am going to make this connection, is how we make sure that young men and women who are susceptible to the likes of al- Qaeda, who grow up in tyrannical countries with lives where they have no hope and no place to put their creative energies and turn to the likes of al-Qaeda, now have hope in the countries where they did not have them before. Now young people in these countries who are opening up their systems, bringing democracy, bringing open societies, they have hope. They have a place to channel their energies. This will be one if we improve our relationship, our cultural understanding, our dialogue, and, yes, our trade with these countries. The Moroccan trade agreement is a perfect example of this vision. I urge Members to pass this trade agreement. It is good for jobs, it is good for Americans, it is good for Moroccans, and it is good for our foreign policy in the Middle East. That is a very, very important goal.