Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry). (Mr. TERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) to talk about this legislation that we are debating, health savings accounts.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, last night we marked up the Medicare bill in the Committee on Ways and Means, and we are hoping to pass a comprehensive Medicare bill by the 4th of July recess. Just a few minutes ago, we heard a sample of some of the rhetoric we are going to hear from the other side, the distortion, the demagoguery. There are three things we are trying to accomplish with Medicare reform which we accomplish in this bill: make Medicare fair for seniors across all of America in all States like my State of Wisconsin; modernize Medicare so that it is once again a comprehensive health care plan with prescription drug coverage; and number 3, and perhaps the most important part, recognize the fact that in 13 years, Medicare is going bankrupt and we need to pass reforms to make Medicare solvent for the baby boom generation. What we are doing is protecting all of the rights seniors have in Medicare today, but expanding their choices of coverage so they have the same choices, like every Member of Congress has here in their own health plan and every other Federal employee. We have to modernize Medicare. We have to make it fair for all of our constituents in all of our States, and we have to save this vital program for the baby boom generation, and that is what we are accomplishing.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I was absent for legislative business last week from June 2, 2003 through June 5, 2003 due to the birth of my son, Charles Wilson Ryan on Friday, May 30, 2003, As a result, I missed rollcall votes 227 through 248. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: 227, H. Res. 159, Expressing the Profound Sorrow on the Occasion of the Death of Irma Rangel; 228, H. Res. 195, Congratulating Sammy Sosa of the Chicago Cubs for hitting 500 Major League Home Runs; 229, H.R. 1465, Designating the facility of the United State Postal Service in Iron Station, North Carolina as the ``General Charles Gabriel Post Office''; 230, S. 222, the Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act; 231, S. 273, the Grand Teton National Park Land Exchange Act; 234, H.J. Res. 4, Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Authorizing the Congress to Prohibit the Physical Desecration of the Flag of the United States; 235, H. Res. 231, Supporting the Goals of Peace Officers Memorial Day; 236. H. Res. 257, Providing for Consideration of H.R. 760, The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act; 237, H. Con. Res. 177, Recognizing and commending the members of the U.S. Armed Forces, and the allies of the United States and their armed forces, who participate in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq and the dedication of military families and countless others for their support; 238, H. Res. 201, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that our Nation's businesses and business owners should be commended for their support of our troops and their families as they serve our country in many ways, especially in these days of increased engagement of our military around the world; 239, H.R. 1954, Armed Forces Naturalization Act; 242, H.R. 760, The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act; 243, H. Res. 256, Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1474, Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act; 244, H. Res. 258, On Ordering the Previous Question for the consideration of S. 222, Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights and Settlement Act and S. 273, Grand Teton National Park Land Exchange Act; 245, H. Res. 258, On Agreeing to the Resolution for the consideration of S. 222, Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act and S. 273, Grand Teton National Park Land Exchange Act; 246, H.R. 1474, Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act; 247, S. 222, Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act; 248, S. 273, Grand Teton National Park Land Exchange Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the following rollcall votes: 232, S. 763, Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States Courthouse Designation Act; 233, Substitute Amendment offered by Mr. Watt to H.J. Res. 4, Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Authorizing the Congress to Prohibit the Physical Desecration of the Flag of the United States; 240, Substitute Amendment offered by Mr. Greenwood to H.R. 760, Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act; 241, Motion to Recommit with Instructions to H.R. 760, Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Bishop Lawrence L. Kirby of Racine, Wisconsin for the spiritual leadership that he has provided to the members of the St. Paul Missionary Baptist Church and the positive influence that he has had on Racine's African American community. For the past 22 years, Bishop Kirby has served as the Senior Pastor at St. Paul's Missionary Baptist Church, the oldest African-American church in the State of Wisconsin. Under his leadership, St. Paul's has grown significantly, evolving into one of the largest and most influential churches in the State. A visionary leader, Bishop Kirby has implemented a series of progressive assistance and developmental programs that serve the needs of the entire community. He has also founded numerous faith-based community organizations and has been called to preach around the world, spreading a message of faith, tolerance and compassion. Throughout his career, Bishop Kirby has remained steadfastly dedicated to helping others and he has not wavered in his commitment to his family, his church, his community and God. His generous actions have touched the lives of the less fortunate, filling their hearts with love and inspiring them to succeed. The citizens of Wisconsin's First Congressional District are fortunate to have been blessed with this wonderful, caring and compassionate man. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Bishop Lawrence L. Kirby for his efforts to make the world a better place in which to live.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing tonight are two different philosophies, two different emotions. Over here on this side of the aisle, we are hearing the emotions of fear, envy, and hate. Over here we are hearing the emotions of hope, growth, and prosperity. That is what this is about. Their philosophy is, you cannot send more than enough to Washington because we can spend it better than you can. That is what we are hearing on this side of the aisle. What we believe is that you can better spend your money yourself. That is what works in this country. That is what freedom is all about. What we are doing in this tax bill, and many people say this is such a huge tax cut, what we are doing in this tax bill is letting Americans keep more of their hard-earned money. We are cutting income tax rates across the board. We are cutting taxes on investment and businesses for job creation. When we look at what has happened in this economy, when we look at the recession we are coming out of, when we look at all those things that hit this economy, the stock market, all the shenanigans at the corporate level, at the 9/11 problems, the terrorist attacks, we need growth in this economy. We need jobs in this economy. And when we see that investment in this economy has been declining for 8 consecutive years, we need to fix that. That is exactly what this tax bill does. If anyone thinks that this tax cut is too big, this tax cut is a 1 percent tax cut. We are cutting taxes 1 percent of revenues. Out of a $28 trillion budget that we are going to spend over the next 10 years, we are simply cutting taxes $350 billion to try to move an economy that during this decade will kick off, at a standstill, $140 trillion in output. We are trying to move it from a standstill to growing and giving our people jobs. That is what this tax bill is all about, and it is rooted in the philosophy that people ought to be able to keep more of what they earn so they can be free to spend it as they see fit.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for engaging in this colloquy. Parliamentary Inquiry

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means in a colloquy. I would like to speak specifically about one provision in the bill before the House today regarding the double taxation of dividends. As drafted, the bill applies a new 15 percent-5 percent rate structure to dividends paid by domestic corporations, while dividends paid by foreign corporations will be taxed at the new individual rates of 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent, and as much as 35 percent. U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-based firms are a very important part of our economy and economic recovery. These companies employ 5.6 million workers right here in America. Furthermore, American taxpayers own approximately $1.8 trillion worth of foreign stocks. Approximately 900 non-U.S. companies are traded on U.S. stock changes. Will the chairman correct this discrepancy as we move forward so as to ensure that the final bill passed by Congress reduces taxes on the dividends paid by both domestic and foreign-owned corporations and treats them equally?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, millions of working Americans depend on mutual funds to invest and save for their future. Fund investors are overwhelmingly middle-income families and individuals who are investing for the long term and mutual funds provide an ideal way for smaller investors to invest in the U.S. economy. Easing the burden to invest and increasing the opportunities for these investors to put more into their portfolios is especially critical now given the nation's current economic health. Because mutual funds are primarily used for long-term investments, many fund investors are understandably frustrated by a tax rule that forces them to pay tax on capital gains before they sell their shares in the fund. To further their long-term savings and investment goals, fund investors typically choose to have any capital gains distributions, which they would otherwise receive from the fund, automatically reinvested in the fund. Nevertheless, under current tax law, these fund investors are required to pay tax on such amounts even though they took no action to trigger those gains and their investment dollars remain in the fund. As widely reported in the press, fund investors find this tax rule inconsistent with both the long-term nature of their investment and their understanding of how investments are taxed. This tax problem would be solved with my legislation by permitting fund investors to defer tax on mutual fund capital gain distributions that are automatically reinvested in the fund. These gains would be taxed when the investors sell their shares in the fund. Postponing the capital gains tax until the fund investor decides to sell his or her shares in the fund is consistent with the basic philosophy that a capital gains tax on an investment is not due until you sell the investment. This is the way an investor who holds stock directly is taxed. Deferring capital gains tax on mutual fund investors until they sell their fund shares will promote savings by middle-income investors. Adoption of this approach will permit those savings to grow more rapidly and remain invested in America's economy as intended by the fund investors. My bill will promote personal savings and investment in the national economy by changing tax rules to reflect the continuing nature of the shareholder's investment in the fund.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I think there is a misunderstanding by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel). Number one, a lot of people are saying we need to study this some more and that there is a study in this bill. We have had a very exhaustive study, last year by its EPA, followed up by numerous studies by the EIA, along with the study from the Federal Trade Commission; so we have had a lot of studies on this. All of them conclude with, we have to get our hands around this boutique fuel problem and consolidate the amount of boutique fuels. Now, how the amendment works is this: The preference will not exacerbate the boutique fuel problem; it will simply streamline the boutique fuels, so that States and counties who now have this ozone attainment standard they have to meet will go to the federally preferred fuel blends, instead of to different kinds of blends that are boutique and that exacerbate this problem. The State of New York will not be affected by this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Because we did not want to preempt States' rights, because we did not want to force each locality as to what blend they would use, we wanted to make it so that they can have an easier path towards satisfying their Clean Air Act requirements by going to these blends first, knowing that they will satisfy the Clean Air Act if they adopt these blends. By having more and more areas adopt these blends, they will be in more supply, they will be cheaper in place, and there will be a greater incentive to adopt these standard blends from this Federal menu. But if they, for some reason, cannot do it, then they can go through the SIP process to get around it.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is fairly straightforward, but it may take me a second to explain. In the 1990 Clean Air Act, what we did in that law was, if an area went out of ozone nonattainment compliance, if an area was too dirty in the air, among the things that were required in that area were new cleaner blends of gasoline. So what occurred in the 1990 Clean Air Act was a new system of fuels whereby the local area that went out of compliance could adopt its own blend of fuels, and so where in 1990 we had three different blends of gasoline in America, we now have 14 different blends of gasoline each with three grades, giving us 45, essentially, different blends of gasoline. What this map right here shows is all the different boutique fuel requirements across America, and what is interesting about this is they are not fungible with one another. So, for example, the gas we burn in the Milwaukee and Chicago region cannot be used in any other part of the country and we in that area cannot use other blends in our part of the country. So if we have a pipeline break, if we have a refinery fire or something happens to disrupt the refinery and pipeline system which is running at 98 percent capacity today, we have a huge shock or drop in the supply of that blend of gasoline, and consequently, we have sharp price spikes. So looking at today's system, we could conceivably drive in from Green Bay, Wisconsin, just down to St. Louis, Illinois, fill the gas tank with four different blends of gasoline, northern or conventional gas in Green Bay, northern reformulated gas or ethanol in Kenosha, a southern reformulated gas in Illinois, and a different reformulated gas in St. Louis. This is where we are today. This is because of all the areas that are out of compliance with the Clean Air Act. But looking at what is to come tomorrow in the Clean Air Act is this: Right now, 136 counties in America are out of compliance with the Clean Air Act, and because of that, have to have a blend of reformulated gas. It is these other blends I just showed the Members, Mr. Chairman. But what is going to happen, when next year we move from the 1-hour ozone standard to the 8-hour nonattainment standard, is another 155 counties will be automatically out of attainment. They will have to have new blends of gasoline. So if we look at the map here, the blue areas on my map are the current nonattainment areas. The red areas on the map, which is most of the densely populated parts of America east of the Mississippi, will also go into nonattainment next year. And what this is going to cause is the proliferation of more boutique fuels. According to the nonpartisan Energy Information Association, this will bring our country from a boutique fuel system of 16 different boutique fuels to another 24 boutique fuels on top of that, giving us more than 100 different blends of gasoline. So let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman. What we are going to, with the new 8-hour ozone attainment rules starting next year, is we are doubling the amount of areas in this country that will go out of attainment. We move from 16 different blends of gasoline to having another 24 different blends of gasoline on top of that system. That is where we are headed today. It is an unsustainable position. And what happens is our supply of fuel gets tight. If the supply lines for any reason get disrupted, we have huge price spikes. What my amendment does is very simple. It simply says for these new areas going into nonattainment, for the other areas who are already at nonattainment who want to change their gasoline, they now have a menu of two clean fuels that are preferred by Federal Government from which to choose, because, for now, what is going to happen when all these counties and all those States go into nonattainment, is up to them. They are going to choose various different boutique fuels to meet their particular needs, and this proliferation of specific blends of gasoline will get out of control. We want to stop that from happening, and so we are simply offering a solution by having a Federal Government menu of two fuels for them to choose from before they try to go and have their other type of gasoline. Mr. Chairman, we are going to have huge gasoline price spikes, as we have had in the upper Midwest lately, in the very near future if we do not fix this problem. The source of that problem is the proliferation of boutique gasoline fuels, and we have a solution in this amendment. It does not force the States to do it, it does not preempt States' rights. It simply says to the States, choose from this menu of clean fuels that the Federal Government offers before they want to go on their own and have a boutique fuel. That is what this amendment does, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. If the gentleman will yield further, there are 45 different fuel blends in existence today. According to the EIA, Energy Information Agency, there will be 69 different fuel blends with the new 8-hour ozone attainment if we do not do something to reduce the number of these blends.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, 6.8 and 7.8, those are from the EPA study conducted last year which recommended a three-fuel menu, 9.0 RVP, which is what we call conventional gas; 7.8 RVP, which is sort of a midlevel clean-burning gas that 20 percent of the country uses; and 6.8 RVP, which is reformulated gas. That is the revapor level equivalent of formulated gas. Those are recommended to us by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I just want to conclude by thanking the chairman for working with us. This is an issue that has plagued motorists in Wisconsin for a few years in a row. It is plaguing all motorists east of the Mississippi, and it is spreading to the rest of the country.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the idea and the need to modify the revapor pressure levels. I do not think that in any way hurts the spirit or intent of this amendment. The intent of this amendment is to first have States go to the preferred fuel and then have to prove that they cannot use that fuel and they have to go to some other kind of fuel, so that we bring them toward a preferred fuel. What that fuel is is clearly something we all should discuss, and there is not one great answer to that question.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. No, it still keeps the SIP process, the State Implementation Plan process. It simply says, we want you to go look at these blends. We prefer these blends. You can satisfy your SIP process with these blends, and if you cannot use these blends, you have to prove that you cannot use these blends and then prove that this will satisfy the Clean Air Act requirements, if you choose not to use these blends. These blends are already cleared under the Clean Air Act today.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I want to introduce another point to this topic of debate, and that is, if we take a look at the fleet consistency of the different car manufacturers, the Big Three American auto manufacturers sell more SUVs and trucks than light cars, relative to the Japanese auto manufacturers, who sell more light, small cars relative to trucks and SUVs. What ends up happening is, this amendment will not serve to get more heavy trucks off the road. It will simply serve to shift market share from U.S. auto manufacturers to Japanese auto manufacturers, and the short time line will actually require the lines to go down. So the line that makes the Tahoes and Suburbans in Janesville, Wisconsin, which is on a 5-year schedule, will have to go down to accommodate these changes. Meanwhile, Japanese acoumeters, like the Sequoias, will fill in and take that market share. It will not take more cars off the road. It will change market share from U.S. auto manufacturers to Japanese auto manufacturers, and it will simply cost U.S. auto manufacturing jobs.