Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for his work on this budget issue as well. Only if all of us work together to bring real reform to the budget process can we actually achieve that. The prior speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), is a person who also deserves a tremendous amount of credit for his work on the budget issue. He is a person who has been around and has witnessed this budget process work and not work, and we really do look forward to working with him on this issue as well. Madam Speaker, I want to briefly describe what the problem we have here is. Every time we bring a budget to the floor of the House of Representatives and the Senate and pass something, and we pass a budget every year, we debate about the numbers, we debate about the glidepath, the dates, all of those things. We just saw the charts of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). This week the House Committee on the Budget will be bringing a budget resolution to the floor. The problem with this entire process is, once Congress sets a budget, Congress does not have to stick to that budget. That is a big problem. Look at how we do it with our family budgets. We do not have the ability to just assume more income into our families when we set a budget for our family budget for the year. However, Congress does that. So what we have here in this current system, it marks the 30th year where we have operated under these current rules, since the 1974 Budget Act was passed, where we will pass a budget resolution, not into law, but as a resolution, binding Congress for the year to those numbers. The problem is, Congress does not have to follow those resolutions, and there are a thousand tricks out of those budget caps. What we have proposed together, many of us, a large group of us on the Republican side of the aisle, and now we have some Democratic cosponsors on some of our bills, so that we are making this a bipartisan effort is, number one, let us make our budget binding. Let us actually pass a budget at the beginning of the session and get its top numbers signed into law by the President so that we have a budget that is legally binding on Congress. Once that is established, that can, therefore, give us the rules to enforce that budget. If we pass a budget that is not legally binding that we do not have to adhere to, it is difficult to enforce it. So what we are proposing is, and this is something our coalition has come up with, I have introduced legislation along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) to do this as well; and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) has also introduced legislation. What we are proposing is, number one, a budget that gets signed into law in its numbers by the President; and, number two, because it is a legally binding budget and a legally binding document, we can, therefore, enforce it. If Congress, if spending exceeds the budget in any given year, automatically, an across-the-board spending cut, a sequester, kicks in to bring us back into conformity with the budget if Congress does not pass a bill to bring us into conformity with the budget. If we want to break that spending, it is no longer a majority vote, which is the case today; it is a two-thirds vote in the House and the Senate to actually break this legally-binding budget. There are many other things we do in this bill, but I think it is very important that as Congress sets its track for spending, as we decide our priorities, as we determine when we hope to balance the budget, what level of spending for this, what level of taxing for that, we ought to be able to enforce that budget so we have the discipline needed to adhere to those goals and those challenges and those numbers. Now, there are some other things that we think we need to do to address this issue, and that is there are a thousand little tricks that are employed here in Congress to get around what little spending discipline we have. For instance, we can pass an emergency spending bill, although emergencies do not have to be paid for in the current budget rules. Emergencies are things like a natural disaster like a tornado or a hurricane or a flood or, God forbid, another act of terrorism. Those things do not have to be paid for under our current budget rules. The problem is, Congress can declare anything an emergency. A couple of years ago in this House, we passed an emergency will that put a $2 million summit house on top of Pike's Peak during, I think, it was a flood disaster emergency bill at that time. We can declare anything an emergency today, and that is one of the often-used tricks to get around the budget rules. We need to stop that, and one of the things we have proposed in our coalition that the gentleman from Illinois (Congressman Kirk) and I are members of and the legislation we are proposing is to tightly define what an emergency is, really what an emergency is.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. One of the other things that we do not account for here in the accrual accounting is the costs of the pension that the Federal Government owes to its employees and many of the other Federal Government's liabilities. If the accountants of the Federal Government had to subscribe to the laws that we have placed upon the private sector, we would make the accountants at Enron look like saints. We would not be able to adhere to the common private sector accounting principles that are employed in the marketplace today. What we wanted to accomplish is a full, clear accounting for all of the Federal Government's debts and liabilities. And that is another thing because if you take a look at the way the Federal budget is displayed and presented to Congress, it does not fully reflect all of the Federal Government's debts and liabilities. That is misleading. We need a clear and accurate picture of truly what taxpayers are on the hook for, not a rosy scenario, not a disguised scenario, not one that makes the situation look better than it actually is.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. That is right.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I only wanted to say that we have now added some Members from the other side of the aisle to our legislation so they have become true pieces of bipartisanship. That is the right step in the right direction. That is the critical ingredient we need to get critical mass to pass these things. But I also wanted to recognize our colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) as well, who is also a very, very strident Member in making sure that we live within our means, a good fiscal conservative. I wanted to ask the gentleman from New Jersey if there are any comments he would like to make on this subject.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, could the gentleman share with us what the budget that was passed out does with respect to the deficit over the next 5 years?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on February 1, 2003, the tragic accident of the Space Shuttle Columbia took the lives of seven of our finest Americans. One year later, this sad event remains fresh in our minds, and we continue to share in the sorrow of those who lost their loved ones and family members that terrible day. Among the brave astronauts aboard the Columbia was Dr. Laurel Clark of Racine, Wisconsin. All of those who knew Laurel were touched by her extraordinary life and are still coping with the pain that her absence has caused. It is very difficult to lose a mother, a wife, a daughter, a sister and a friend, and our thoughts should be with Laurel's family and loved ones s they continue to honor her memory. Although Laurel Clark lived only 41 years on this earth, she was accomplished as a doctor, a scientist and a mother. She poured her energy into her many pursuits and showed us that with focus, passion and dedication, it is possible to achieve your dreams. Laurel also never forgot the importance of family, and it is impossible to quantify the joy that she brought to those closest to her. Unwavering in her efforts to improve the world, Laurel began with those around her. In the end, she made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of this cause, hoping that the scientific research she conducted in space could provide a better world for all humanity. As we honor the life of Laurel Clark, we must never forget the joy, happiness and everlasting inspiration that she brought to the world, and we should strive to live our lives as she did.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

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 H.R. 3652.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Ways and Means be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3652) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the taxation of imported archery products, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, along with my colleague, Representative Matheson, I am pleased to introduce the Archery Revenue Reform and Opportunity for Workers Act of 2003 (ARROW Act). Our bill will protect Americans jobs by fixing a mistake in the tax code that allows archery equipment to be imported into the United States without paying the excise tax that American manufacturers pay. Our bill will close this loophole now. The excise tax on domestically produced arrows is 12.4 percent. The revenue from this excise tax is dedicated to the Pittman-Robertson Aid for Wildlife Restoration Fund that finances the States' wildlife conservation and habitat restoration programs. In 1997, a change in the excise tax inadvertently created a loophole that allows arrows manufactured outside of the United States to be sold in the United States without paying the tax paid by American manufacturers. Sales of imported arrows and arrow shafts have increased from less than $1 million in 1997 to over $12 million in 2002. By avoiding the excise tax, foreign manufacturers have displaced more than one-third of our domestic production. The loss of U.S. jobs and the negative impact on domestic small businesses will continue to accelerate, as year-to-date imports through June 30 have increased 35 percent over the same time period in 2002. In addition to the loss of jobs, this loophole is draining funding from the States' conservation and game management programs. This legislation will close the loophole that allows imported arrows to avoid the excise tax paid by domestic manufacturers. While keeping the current 12.4 percent tax on arrow components, the proposal will impose a tax of 12 percent on the first sale of an arrow assembled from untaxed components. U.S. manufacturers and foreign manufacturers will be treated equally. Current law also taxes non-hunters, contrary to congressional intent. To relieve non-hunters from the requirement to pay for wildlife management, the legislation would eliminate the current-law tax on bows with draw weights of less than 30 pounds. Those bows are not suitable or, in many States, legal for hunting. To preserve the revenue for the Wildlife Restoration Fund, the bill would retain the current tax on bows that are suitable for hunting. Finally, the ARROW Act will clarify that broadheads are an accessory taxed at 11 percent rather than as an arrow component taxed at 12.4 percent. This will correct the ambiguity in the 1997 act that led to the misclassification of broadheads. I urge my colleagues to pass the Archery Revenue Reform and Opportunity for Workers Act today. This bill will save American jobs and protect funding for the Wildlife Restoration Program (the Pittman- Robertson fund) by simplifying administration and compliance with the excise tax and closing the unintended loophole that allows arrows assembled outside the United States to avoid the excise tax imposed on domestic manufacturers. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Just a point of clarification. The reason that costs much more money is because we make those tax cuts permanent throughout the decade, and we do not yank them back at the end of the election. We actually put these tax cuts, like repealing the marriage penalty and the child tax credit, in place for 10 years. That is why the bill costs so much more money.

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

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me take a few moments to comment on the past speakers. First, I would like to fill in the gaps in the history that was rendered earlier here. My information says that this is the 17th motion to instruct, not the 25th. We will see. We will have to look into the Congressional Record to find that out. Nevertheless, I get a great sense of deja vu right now. But all joking aside, Mr. Speaker, one thing that the speakers who just spoke failed to mention was that on June 12 of this year, the House did pass legislation making the child tax credit immediately refundable going back this year for these families in question. So one gets the impression from having listened to these speakers that we did not do anything, that we did not pass anything. That is not true. What this motion to instruct is encouraging is passage of an inferior tax bill from the Senate. What do I mean when I say inferior, Mr. Speaker? They want the child tax credit to go up to $1,000 for these families and then they want to take it away after the next election. It will go up for this year. It will go up for next year, and then the bill that they are advocating to take it away after the next election. The bill we passed on this floor not only gives these families the full $1,000-per-child tax credit this year, next year but also for the rest of the decade. On top of that, Mr. Speaker, we also do away with the marriage tax penalty, which the bill they are advocating does not address. So I just want to fill in the full story as to what is occurring here. Now, the other issue that we are hearing about is that we are not doing anything for the military, the kids whose parent are in the military. Now, the most recent history on this issue goes back to about 1 hour ago when we just passed a bill unanimously off the floor of this House to give $1.2 billion in tax cuts to our men and women in uniform who are serving and fighting for us overseas. We just passed the Military Tax Fairness Act probably not even an hour ago off of this floor, and it is now going to the President's desk to be signed into law. So to suggest that the men and women in the military are all of the sudden being left out of tax relief is just not true, it is not accurate; and an hour ago we just fixed those problems. So that is an issue I just also thought would be important to fill in the gaps of the historical rendition that we have been hearing today. Now, as to the issue of, and this is an accuracy that I think needs to be pointed out, as to the issue of whether or not these families are paying the taxes and they deserve the tax credit or not, these families, mind you, Mr. Speaker, do not pay Federal taxes. Their FICA taxes are offset by the earned income credit. They do not pay income taxes. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the bill the House passed on June 12 did give these families, regardless of the fact that they do not pay FICA taxes which are offset by the EIC or income taxes, a cash benefit or bonus in the form of a refundable tax credit to the tune of $1,000. Again, not this year and next year, but for the rest of the decade. Now, the other issues that have been brought to the floor were more general issues about the tax bills. You have heard the things about tax cuts for the wealthy and that tax cuts hurt the economy. Let us go back into the revision of history that we just heard about the tax law that passed earlier this summer. Now, it is important to note that two-thirds of the top income tax bracket, the people who filed those taxes are not millionaires sitting on their yachts sipping champagne. Two-thirds of the top income tax bracket are small businesses who are the driving force of job creation in this economy. Seventy percent of the jobs we get out of this economy come from small businesses. Two-thirds of that tax bracket are small businesses. We were taxing small businesses at a tax rate higher than what we taxed large corporations in America. So before the last tax bill went into place on July 1, we taxed small businesses at a rate of about 40 percent, when we taxed IBM and General Motors and Chrysler and all these other companies at 35 percent. That was ridiculous. Why should we be taxing small businesses in this country who are the engine of economic growth and jobs in this country at a higher tax rate than we are taxing the largest corporations in America? That is why we cut the tax across the board on individual income taxes. That was good. That is a good thing to do. It is not a tax cut for people who own yachts. It is a tax cut for people who have jobs and provide jobs in this economy. Now, what has happened since that tax bill passed? Many of the speakers have been saying it is driving a hole in the deficit; it is actually hurting the economy. That tax bill passed on July 1. The third quarter of this economy started on July 1 and ended on September 30. What happened immediately after that tax bill passed? The economy grew at 7.2 percent. I repeat: during that period, the third quarter, the economy grew at 7.2 percent. That is the fastest economic growth quarter in this country in 19 years, in 19 years, Mr. Speaker. Our economy grew right after this tax cut passed into law in the fastest quarterly growth in 19 years. That creates jobs. What happened to the deficit at that period, Mr. Speaker? The deficit went down by $80 billion. So what we see when that happened was when we cut taxes, not only did the economy grow, not only did a lot of wealth that was lost in the stock market come back because the stock market grew, but because the economy grew because people are going back to work because 72,000 people got jobs last month, people are paying taxes. The economy is growing and more remedies are coming into the Federal Government and the deficit is going down. So just look at the facts and you can tell that tax relief works, that tax relief across the board, especially on small businesses, works; and the proof is in the statistics. The economy is growing. It is growing very fast. Jobs are being created. Jobs are coming back, and people are paying taxes who otherwise were not paying taxes and the deficit is going down. Now, we have got to keep that going. And the last thing we want to do is roll back these tax cuts. What this motion to recommit is suggesting to do is pass these tax cuts and then yank them out from under the taxpayers after the election. The last thing we want to do in this economy is in the year 2005 raise taxes on people. Take the child tax credit down by $500 and stop that tax payment to all of these families. Mr. Speaker, I think this is the 17th time we have had this motion. Whether it is the 17th time or the 25th time, what we are trying to accomplish is tax relief. We passed the bill. It is a better bill. That is the bill we are trying to get into law. I hope the gentleman who is a good guy, who is my friend on the Committee on Ways and Means, would join us. If we linked arms, we could get all of these things done and make a difference, and these families could have this tax cut for the rest of the decade, not just until the next election. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered by my colleague from Wisconsin and would like to comment on a few of the comments my colleague from Michigan said. He basically said the procurement process is done. This is an end run around the system. It is very important that we note we have had Buy American provisions in many, many Defense Department contracts. On issues of national security and on issues of homeland security, this Congress has, time over time over time, stipulated that we need to keep our U.S. manufacturing base intact so that when it comes to these matters of national and homeland security, we have the infrastructure and economy in this country to produce these goods that we need. This is simply being consistent with our Buy American language that we have had in other bills. We have had provisions for these kinds of purchases of these kinds of engines in the Defense Department appropriations bill. So it is very consistent that this language be included in this particular authorization bill, because this exact language has been included in other bills, namely Defense appropriations. We are not asking for something that is new and novel and different. The one thing we are asking for is we think it is important that this Congress does make a statement, and that statement is that, especially in areas of homeland and national security, we work to make sure we still have a manufacturing base in this country that can produce the kinds of goods and services we need to keep our country secure, to keep our borders secure. These engines that are going into these ships to protect our homeland, it is very important that we keep this industry alive in this country, because who knows what could happen down the road when we have to rely on other countries to help us protect our own country? They may not be there in the future. That is why this is important. It is also important because we are losing manufacturing jobs in this economy. Many areas of this economy are growing very well. We had 7.2 percent economic growth in the last quarter. That is the fastest in 19 years. But, and the big ``but'' is, we are still losing manufacturing jobs. This provision would keep and maintain manufacturing jobs in America, not in Germany. We are not against manufacturing jobs in Germany, we are just more for manufacturing jobs in America, especially in matters of homeland and national security. I urge adoption of this amendment. It is consistent with many other policies this Congress has passed in the very recent past, and, because of that, I urge its passage.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership on this issue and for bringing this resolution, to which I am a cosponsor, to the floor. Mr. Speaker, this is a dire issue for America. I come from Wisconsin, which arguably has the most manufacturing jobs lost per capita to any other State in the country. There is a fact that the economic recovery that is under way in America is not necessarily going through manufacturing. We have bled manufacturing jobs, especially over the last couple of years. And when you boil it down and look at what is going on in manufacturing, there are two areas we have to focus on. Number one, we have to stop pushing jobs overseas. We have to lower health care costs, lower the tax rates on American manufacturers, cut down the regulatory and lawsuit costs, make energy costs cheaper and more affordable and more reliable. But we also have to work at stopping countries from unfairly taking jobs overseas. That is what this resolution is all about. What this resolution does is express what we in Congress think needs to happen, and what we believe needs to happen is, number one, I am glad that China is in the WTO, because before a year-and-a-half ago, we did not have China signing up to a treaty to play by fair trade rules, we did not have the means to hold China accountable. Now that China is in the WTO, they have signed on the dotted line, they have said they would play fairly, they would obey international fair trade standards, and they are not doing that. What this resolution does is it says enough. Congress is serious. China needs to obey and play by the rules that they themselves signed up to play by just a year-and-a-half ago. Now, in Congress, we cannot change China's laws; only they can do that. But we can speak with unity here in this body, Republicans and Democrats, saying that we need to make sure that China upholds their commitments, that they need to play by the rules they themselves signed up to, that we urge and encourage our administration to hold them accountable with our trading partners who are similarly affected by devaluing their currency, pegging their currency at a discount, stealing our intellectual property rights, subsidizing their business sectors. This is an opportunity for Congress to speak with one voice against these abuses that need to change, and change today. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to honor a veteran of World War II and a resident of Kenosha, Wisconsin, who is currently visiting our Nation's Capital for the first time in his life. His story is a remarkable one, and I'd like to share a few highlights with you. Tony Vitkus served in the Marine Corps in the South Pacific from 1942 to 1945. He was a rear gunner in a Dauntless dive bomber and survived a crash in that airplane. That very plane is now on display at the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum just a few blocks from here. This week, Mr. Vitkus went there and saw his aircraft. Anyone familiar with the dangerous position of a rear gunner knows the immense risk that Mr. Vitkus took in serving his country in this capacity. And, as if this wasn't enough, he also served as plane captain of a Corsair fighter on the U.S.S. Bennington. After the war, Tony Vitkus got married and raised six children while working in Kenosha as a milkman and later as a pool custodian. He has been an active member of the community, serving as an alderman and also on the Water Commission, and he stays active to this day. It is because of Tony Vitkus and others like him that we prevailed in World War II. These courageous individuals and the military men and women who have followed in their footsteps are the reason we remain free to this day. We owe them our respect and gratitude for their service and many sacrifices for our country.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me the time. I also thank him for all of his years of leadership on this issue. It is very, very important. I simply want to lend my support and echo the sentiments of the gentleman from Maryland and the gentleman from Ohio on the fact that more does need to be done than what we are just doing here today. Few times have I had the opportunity to see an issue that is bipartisan, where labor and management can agree on things and come together to work for a common purpose for our country and for the workers of America. That is something that is important, and that is something that we need to advance, and that is why more needs to be done. Multi-employer plans, mortality table rate reform, those things are important; and we need to pass legislation to do that, but this bill right here does need to pass. This bill needs to pass because this is about jobs, and I know this is pretty complicated. It is a difficult issue to get our arms around; but what it basically means is if this bill does not pass, millions of dollars, billions of dollars that are coming through corporations because of the economic recovery that is beginning, that is under way, instead of creating jobs and hiring people will go into artificial pension payments, and that is not good. We have a recovery that we are trying to get under way. In many areas the recovery is under way. In manufacturing we still have work to do. The last thing we need to do is put a huge tax on the economic recovery of this Nation, and that is why it is important that the cash that is coming through these firms go to bringing these people back to work, expanding, buying new pieces of plant and equipment. We have all of these tax benefits that are now under way through the tax bills that we have passed to give incentives to manufacturers, to give incentives to employers to reinvest in their businesses, to expand, to rehire employees. It would be a horrible thing if all of the sudden we allow this reform to expire, and these plans, rather than expanding, buying new plant equipment, rehiring employees, have to dump it into these artificial payments. This needs to pass so the economic recovery can continue. Then we need to get together to work on these broader reforms sooner rather than later. I thank my colleagues for what they are doing.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with Congressman Pomeroy and 79 original cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, to introduce the Mobile Machinery Tax Fairness Act. This legislation is designed to preserve the longstanding exemption of special mobile equipment, or ``mobile machinery,'' from federal highway excise taxes. Mr. Speaker, since the highway trust fund was originally created almost 50 years ago, it has been the policy of the federal government to exclude from taxation certain vehicles whose primary purpose is to perform an off-road function. Mobile machines, such as mobile cranes, concrete pumpers, and mobile drill rigs, bucket trucks, and digger derricks, only use the public highways to travel back and forth from the job site, and sometimes stay there for weeks or months at a time. However, in June of 2002, with little debate and no input from Congress, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) proposed a complete elimination of the mobile machinery exemption. If adopted, the IRS proposal would force businesses that use mobile machinery to pay the vehicle excise tax (12 percent of the chassis price) and, the motor fuel tax (18.4 cents per gallon on gas and 24.4 cents per gallon on diesel), as well as the tire excise tax and heavy vehicle use tax. This change would cost the affected businesses tens of millions of dollars each year in increased taxes. Furthermore, a significant majority of the firms that would be paying this tax are smaller businesses in economically sensitive industries such as commercial and residential construction, oil and gas production, and timber harvesting. Finally, the IRS proposal would undermine current economic policy by counteracting, and in some cases eliminating, the depreciation bonus for new equipment enacted by Congress as part of the ``Post-9/11'' economic stimulus package. IRS has since delayed its regulatory proposal. However, it is now using two recent Federal court decisions to effectively deny nearly all claims for mobile machinery-related tax refunds. Only Congress can head off IRS's actions and restore the exemption which has served industry for 26 years. My legislation simply preserves the current regulatory exemption in statutory form and I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank gentleman for his leadership. I urge all of my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, to vote for this and to save lives.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate my colleague from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for his leadership on this issue. This bill has been called an abomination, frivolous. Let us quickly examine what a partial-birth abortion is. In a partial-birth abortion, the abortionist pulls a living baby, feet first, out of the womb and into the birth canal as we can see right here, except for the head, which the abortionist purposely keeps lodged just inside the cervix. The abortionist punctures the base of the baby's skull with a surgical instrument, like a long surgical scissor or a pointed hollow metal tube called a trocar. Then he inserts the catheter into the womb and removes the baby's brain with a powerful suction machine. This causes the skull to collapse, after which the abortionist completes the delivery of the now dead baby. That is what is occurring in America today. This is happening right now. This vote will stop this from happening. I urge all of us to pass this bill.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Colonel Diane L. Berard, a native of Janesville, Wisconsin, who will retire later this year after more than 26 years of distinguished service with the United States Army. Colonel Berard was born in Janesville, Wisconsin, and attended the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. She graduated with a degree in accounting and was recognized as a Distinguished Military Graduate for her participation in the university's four-year ROTC program. In addition to holding the distinction of being the first woman to graduate from a four-year ROTC program at the University of Wisconsin- Whitewater, Colonel Berard is also the school's first ROTC graduate to earn the rank of Colonel in the United States Army. Colonel Berard's first duty station was with the U.S. Army in Germany. Since that assignment, Colonel Berard has been stationed in Fort Stewart, Georgia; the Pentagon; Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois; Fort Jackson, South Carolina; Fort Hood, Texas; Fort Eustis, Virginia; and Fort McCoy, Wisconsin. She closes out her long military career as the senior military Resource Manager for the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Virginia. At Fort Monroe, she worked with the Deputy Chief of Staff for Resource Management in the planning, execution, and overall management of resources totaling 4.2 billion dollars. As a reflection of the leadership skills and financial management expertise that have allowed her to shape the future of financial services for soldiers and their units serving worldwide, Colonel Berard has received numerous awards and decorations. Eight Meritorious Service Medals, two Army Commendation Medals and two Army Achievement Medals are only a few of the many distinctions that she received throughout her career. Upon her retirement, Colonel Berard will be awarded the prestigious Legion of Merit, an honor reserved for members of the Armed Forces who have displayed exceptionally outstanding conduct in the performance of meritorious service to the United States. This tremendous award is a fitting tribute to Colonel Berard for her courage, patriotic service, and exemplary dedication to her profession. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Colonel Berard for her service to the Nation and the United States Army, and wish her and her family all the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his tireless work on a bipartisan basis to bring this bill to the floor. I want to quickly address some of the inaccuracies dealing with the collegiate housing issue. The claim is the collegiate housing issue only helps sororities and fraternities. Let me tell Members exactly what this does and does not do. Number one, for many of us who represent colleges and universities in our districts, we realize that there is an undersupply of off-campus housing and an overcrowding on campus in our Nation's colleges and universities. What this simply does is it allows off-campus housing be built by nonprofit organizations to address this need, to bring up to code, to fire code, off-campus housing because right now if you are going to invest tax-deductible dollars into a nonprofit, you can deduct those and invest them on campus for university housing; but you cannot take tax-deductible dollars to invest in building collegiate housing off campus even though they are nonprofit, not-for-profit foundations. So this goes well beyond sororities and fraternities. It goes to religious organizations, Hillel; it goes to nonprofits and fraternities and sororities, and only to university students who have academic careers, not to country clubs or anything else. It is tightly defined, and it puts the need where it is required and that is to address this critical shortage of bringing buildings up to code and addressing this housing shortage need.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, so this motion to recommit raises prices for seniors 8 to $12 billion?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, the only point I was making was I was not saying the current Medicare program is privatized. Under my colleague's logic, under my colleague's definition of privatization, Medicare is certainly privatized, which is not the case. That is why we are not privatizing Medicare.