Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, September 11, 2001, brought to light a horror that the American people and the world had up until then only seen in movies. On that day, we learned, as a nation, what it means to be terrorized. The nineteen men who hijacked airliners and used them as guided missiles showed us that even on our home soil Americans are not shielded from the reach of terrorism. Bearing in mind, we must continue to defend against these forces of evil and those who support them. We cannot spend the rest of our lives in fear. I support this resolution in order to protect the life of every American, at home and abroad, I also believe it offers the best chance for peace because it clearly communicates U.S. resolve to Saddam Hussein and makes clear that his continued refusal to disarm will be his undoing. Mr. Speaker, granting the authority to send our brave men and women in uniform overseas to fight in hostile territory is the most difficult decision we make in Congress. That was true last year and it remains true today. Since the beginning of the first mission in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, our military men and women have fought terrorists and disrupted their networks, liberated a country, and brought the prospect of peace and democracy to a nation that had not seen either in decades. While our military campaign in Afghanistan is slowly coming to a close, we must not lose sight of our primary objective, to rid the world of terrorists and those who sustain them. Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq fit this description. Mr. Speaker, after sifting through the evidence, reviewing the facts, and probing the Administration, I am convinced Saddam Hussein's regime is a clear and present threat to the security of the United States and our allies. Since he came to power in Iraq in 1979, Hussein has waged war on his neighbors and terrorized his own people with chemical weapons. He has allowed terrorists groups, such as al Qaeda, to operate safety in Iraq. He has supported terrorist actions by compensating the families of Palestinian suicide bombers for their attacks on innocent Israeli citizens. He orders his military to fire missiles and artillery on U.S. and a coalition aircraft that patrol the U.N.-imposed no-fly zones that protect Kurd and Shi'a Muslims in Northern and Southern Iraq, respectively. He has attempted to assassinate a former U.S. President. Moreover, he has violated the basic human rights of his people, causing them to live in fear and poverty, while he builds Presidential palaces and lives of life of luxury. Currently, there is nothing stopping him from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies, or from giving them to terrorists. After the gulf war in 1991, Saddam Hussein agreed to abide by United Nations Security Council Resolutions 686, 687, and 688. By agreeing to these resolutions, Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear the financial liability for damage from the gulf war; and end his repression of the Iraqi people. Mr. Speaker, he has taken none of these required actions. As a matter of fact, over the past decade, Saddam Hussein has shown nothing but contempt for the United Nations and its member-states. In all, Hussein has violated sixteen critical U.N. resolutions. It became obvious that Hussein had no intention of cooperating with the U.N. when Iraq ceased cooperation with weapons inspectors on October 31, 1998, after several years of evading, deceiving, and even harassing U.N. weapons inspectors. This flagrant violation of U.N. Resolution 687 prompted the passage of U.N. Resolution 1205, which called on Iraq to continue ``immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation'' with U.N. weapons inspectors. These events led to the Clinton Administration signing the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 into law, which clarifies the official position of the United States as promoting regime change in Iraq. Regardless, it has been four years since weapons inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that within this time Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs, and according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, an independent research center based in London, there is little doubt that Hussein's nuclear capabilities are within reach. If Saddam Hussein persists in violating U.N. Security Council resolutions and refuses to disarm and the use of force becomes our only option, then the goal of military action should not just be to remove weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. Military action must also have the end result of removing Hussein from power. In the end, nothing short of a regime change will liberate the Iraqi people, whom Saddam Hussein has repressed for more than two decades. Since April of 1991, Hussein has continued to ignore U.N. Resolution 688, which requires him to allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to help those in need of assistance in Iraq. Furthermore, Hussein punishes his people by diverting funds from the U.N.'s ``oil-for-food'' program to pay for his weapons programs. I believe Saddam Hussein will continue to do what he has done so effectively in the past: violate the basic human rights of every Iraqi citizen. I would now like to read to you the following excerpt from the book The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq by Kenneth M. Pollack. Mr. Pollack, a former analyst on Iraq for the Central Intelligence Agency who served on the National Security Council during the Clinton Administration, is one of the foremost experts on Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime. This is a regime that will gouge out the eyes of children to force confessions from their parents and grandparents. This is a regime that will crush all of the bones in the feet of a two-year-old-girl to force her mother to divulge her father's whereabouts. This is a regime that will hold a nursing baby at arm's length from its mother and allow the child to starve to death to force the mother to confess. This is a regime that will burn a person's limbs off to force him to confess or comply. This is a regime that will slowly lower its victims into huge vats of acid, either to break their will or simply as a means of execution. This is a regime that applies electric shocks to the bodies of its victims, particularly their genitals, with great creativity. This is a regime that in [the year] 2000 decreed that the crime of criticizing the regime (which can be as harmless as suggesting that Saddam's clothing does not match) would be punished by cutting out the offender's tongue. This is a regime that practices systematic rape against its female victims. This is a regime that will drag in a man's wife, daughter, or other female relative and repeatedly rape her in front of him. This is a regime that will force a white-hot metal rod into a person's anus or other orifices. This is a regime that employs thalium poisoning, widely considered one of the most excruciating ways to die. This is a regime that will behead a young mother in the street in front of her house and children because her husband was suspected of opposing the regime. This is a regime that used chemical warfare on its own Kurdish citizens--not just on the fifteen thousand killed and maimed at Halabja but on scores of other villages all across Kurdistan. This is a regime that tested chemical and biological warfare agents on Iranian prisoners of war, using the POWs in controlled experiments to determine the best ways to disperse the agents to inflict the greatest damage. This is the fate that awaits thousands of Iraqis each year. The roughest estimates are that over the last twenty years more than two hundred thousand people have disappeared into Saddam's prison system, never to be heard from again. Hundreds of thousands of others were taken away and, after unforgettable bouts of torture that left them psychologically and often physically mangled, eventually were released or escaped. To give a sense of scale, just the numbers of Iraqis never heard from again would be equivalent to about 2.5 million Americans suffering such a fate. It is true that Iraq has said publicly that it will allow weapons inspectors to return. While some members of the United Nations believe Iraq is taking the necessary steps to rectify its past transgressions, Iraq has placed several conditions that can only hamstring the U.N.'s efforts. If the U.N. bows to Hussein's demands, the legitimacy of the entire organization could be called into question. The purpose of this resolution is to authorize the President to use such force as may be necessary to protect the national security of the United States from threats posed by Iraq and to enforce U.N. Resolutions. Yet even more clear than this language is the message it sends. This resolution sends the message of resolve. It shows that we are resolved to protect ourselves and our allies with whatever means are necessary. And, it is precisely because of this message that we open up the possibility of a peaceful settlement to this great threat. To be clear, after eleven years of dealing with Iraq one thing is certain: Saddam Hussein is motivated only when he finds he has no other options. This resolution demonstrates our unity behind action, should he fail to meet the demands of the international community. Without it, we can be assured that Hussein's Iraq will continue stockpiling and developing weapons of mass death, providing safe haven for terrorists, and tormenting his own people. Meanwhile, the danger for American and our allies will grow even worse. Additionally, we seem to be experiencing quite a logjam in the U.N. I believe that passage of this resolution will help break that impasse and secure a meaningful and direct resolution from the U.N., which will help build a larger multilateral coalition around this just cause. If these last attempts at a peaceful solution do fail, then we must show that we are resolved to act to rid the world of this great threat. Mr. Speaker, war should always take a backseat to peace. I still hold out hope that a peaceful solution can be reached. Unfortunately, time and time again, Saddam Hussein has forsaken his opportunities for peace. He is aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons and build up his other weapons of mass destruction. The longer he is allowed to make progress on these deadly projects, the greater the threat to us-- including the threat that Iraq could supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. If Hussein refuses to comply, the United States must take action, or risk the use of biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons against us on our own soil.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to see if I could add something to this debate that had not been covered tonight, because I think on both sides of the aisle we have had very articulate arguments. So I have brought with me a book called The Threatening Storm by Mr. Kenneth Pollack. Mr. Pollack was the expert on Iraq in the Clinton administration in both the CIA and at the Security Council, and I would like to read a quick passage about the kind of regime that Saddam Hussein imposes on his own people. ``This is a regime that will gouge out the eyes of children to force confessions from their parents and grandparents. This a regime that will crush all of the bones in the feet of a 2-year-old girl to force her mother to divulge her father's whereabouts. This is a regime that will hold a nursing baby at arm's length from its mother and allow the child to starve to death to force the mother to confess. This is a regime that will burn a person's limbs off to force him to confess or comply. This is a regime that will slowly lower its victims into huge vats of acid, either to break their will or simply as a means of execution. This is a regime that applies electric shocks to the bodies of its victims, particularly their genitals, with great creativity. This is a regime that in 2000 decreed that the crime of criticizing the regime, which can be as harmless as suggesting that Saddam's clothing does not match, will be punished by cutting out the offender's tongue. This is a regime that practices systematic rape against its female victims. This is a regime that will drag in a man's wife, daughter or other female relative and repeatedly rape her in front of him. This is a regime that will force a white-hot metal rod into a person's anus or other orifices. This is a regime that employs thalium poisoning, widely considered one of the most excruciating ways to die. This is a regime that will behead a young mother in the street in front of her house and children because her husband was suspected of opposing the regime. This is a regime that used chemical warfare on its own Kurdish citizens, not just on the 15,000 killed and maimed at Halabja but on scores of other villages all across Kurdistan. This is a regime that tested chemical and biological warfare agents on Iranian prisoners of war, using the POWs in controlled experiments to determine the best ways to disperse the agents to inflict the greatest damages. ``This is the fate that awaits thousands of Iraqis each year. The roughest estimates are that over the last 20 years more than 200,000 people have disappeared into Saddam's prison system, never to be heard from again. Hundreds of thousands of others were taken away and, after unforgettable bouts of torture that left them psychologically and often physically mangled, eventually were released or escaped. To give a sense of scale, just the numbers of Iraqis never heard from again would be equivalent to about 2.5 million Americans suffering such a fate.'' Mr. Speaker, not since Hitler and not since Stalin have we seen so much evil delivered by one man. On top of that, these are the least of the reasons why this authorization is needed. This tyrant has amassed a large cache of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction and is aggressively seeking nuclear weapons. He sees America as the only obstacle to his perverse ambitions, and that is what he shares with al Qaeda, these terrorists against us, this deep hatred for America. We must not let him share anything else with these terrorists, Mr. Speaker. With that, Mr. Speaker, it is a painful vote, it is a painful subject, it is a painful issue, but this is a cause that we cannot go unanswered. I urge a yes vote, and I urge passage of this resolution.

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. Res. 544, the resolution just agreed to.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the greatest antidote to totalitarianism is an informed mind. I would like to read a quick passage from an independent journalist, a dissident in Cuba, Oscar Espinosa Chepe: ``The passage of the House amendment last year to end the travel ban reflects a public opinion that every day understands more clearly that the effort to isolate Cuba has only increased the suffering of the Cuban people and strengthened the positions of the most recalcitrant elements in the Havana regime. Experience demonstrates that isolationism breathes life into totalitarianism. It helps it exercise control over citizens subjected to its power and to reinforce its monopoly over their minds. On the other hand, contact between peoples free individuals from falsehoods and from the lies without dignity to which they are obliged to lead.'' Mr. Chairman, it has been the American policy from Republican presidents and Democrat presidents that we engage; it has been in the American policy that we engage the Soviet Union, that we engage China, that we, just a few minutes ago, voted to engage Vietnam. We should do the same with Cuba. The simple reason is that it has been a bedrock principle of American policy that travel is a device that opens closed societies. American travelers are our best ambassadors. They carry the idea of freedom to people from communist countries. There is no reason to make this exception for Cuba. We want Americans to go down and exchange ideas, to show them the taste of freedom, to know what kind of brutal totalitarian regime they are living under. A people cannot rise up and ask for alternatives if they are not acquainted with those alternatives. We are simply saying this 42-year practice of turning our backs, of looking inward, of being hypocrites while we go to China and Russia and Vietnam, must be ended. With that, Mr. Chairman, I call for a yes vote on the Flake amendment. I encourage Members to vote for the Flake amendment.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I think there is a misunderstanding. This is not about expatriates; it is about whether or not we are going to cut the Joint Committee on Taxation, a committee that is overworked right now. They take about 4,500 Member requests and process them. If we cut this back and deprive them of any cost-of- living adjustments, which Members of Congress get, we are doing a disservice to the revenue-estimating function of this Congress. The study is not done yet. There is new tax policy to factor. They are going to get the study. We want to see the study. Let us not do this amendment and cut this vital funding, because if we do, Congress will not be well served in trying to do its job.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I just want to add my voice to the debate that is taking place tonight. What this debate is about is trying to get our arms around this budget process. When the budget resolution passed earlier in the spring, it was passed at a time when we still had a budget surplus, and now when we find out just a few days ago we actually have a $165 billion budget deficit, and yet even still we are having a hard time getting an agreement to stick to the budget resolution that we created when we had a budget surplus. What this debate is all about, Mr. Chairman, is trying to make sense in the process. The men and the women who serve on the Committee on Appropriations who are managing these bills this evening are hardworking, good people, but the concern is bigger than just the appropriations process. It is bigger than the Committee on Appropriations. The concern is, are we going to put together a process, absent with the fact that the Senate did not pass a budget resolution, that gives us some spending discipline here in Congress? We have serious challenges facing our country this year, Mr. Chairman. We went to war. We are just trying to get ourselves out of a recession, and we have serious vulnerabilities on our homeland that we are trying to protect. At the same time, we have a very significant and large budget deficit that just popped onto us for the first time in 5 years. We need to deal with this and we need this Congress to deal with it in a very serious way, and that is why we see these amendments coming through on the floor tonight because tonight is the first time we are approaching domestic discretionary spending. We passed defense bills for military construction. We passed a defense bill to fund the Pentagon, and we passed the supplemental to fund homeland security and to fund the ongoing operations in Afghanistan. Tonight is the beginning of the funding of domestic discretionary spending. That is why this debate is taking place tonight, because now as we move forward on funding domestic priorities, we realize that these priorities have not been adequately addressed by this Congress yet. That is why we are saying this, hold the line on domestic spending, address the need to fight the war, address the need to protect the homeland, and let us get a handle on getting rid of this budget deficit. That is why this debate is taking place. When we take a look at the budget process and we take a look at the budget resolution we have, the process has always broken down along the following logic, put the easier-to-pass bills earlier in the process, put them in the queue, raise the spending level on those bills and then lower the spending levels under levels that are not acceptable by this conference for the difficult appropriation bills. My own senior delegation member, the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, probably put it better than anybody has on the floor tonight; that is, that this is a process that is doomed to fail and that is doomed to spend more money at the end of the day. That is what we are trying to get our arms around right now. We are trying to make this a process that is not doomed to fail, that is not a process that is doomed to spend more money at the end of the day. We are trying to bring sense to this process so that it is a process that helps us get our handle on this budget deficit while fixing our problems in the homeland, while fighting our priorities in the war and making sure that we go to the American people and we show them that we are being good stewards of their money. Mr. Chairman, we have corporate accounting scandals that are popping up in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times every week, and these corporate accounting scandals are showing that corporations are misrepresenting the facts, that they are overreporting income. Mr. Chairman, look at the kind of accounting problems we have had here in effect. It has already been mentioned over and over again that just in the last 5 or 6 years the corresponding budget amendments that have passed this House have been exceeded by this Congress by about $142 billion, five times the reported scandals that have occurred in the private sector. So we need to get our handle on our fiscal responsibilities. We need to put our fiscal house in order, and we need to bring some common sense to this budget process because this is not a common year.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I am speaking on the amendment at hand. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address a bigger issue that is at play tonight with the bringing of this appropriations bill to the floor; that is, our budget resolution is unraveling before us. The reason we set budget resolutions in Congress is so that we make the entire Federal budget fit into a comprehensive plan. When we wrote the budget resolution earlier this spring, we had a budget surplus. Now we see, as of a few days ago, we have a budget deficit, but we are still moving with that budget resolution, hopefully. But as we see this appropriations process unravel, it looks as though this budget resolution will even be broken. So, Mr. Chairman, I am very much enlightened by the comments by the senior delegation member from my own State who I know to be a man that not always is in agreement with me, and I do not always agree with him, but I know he is a straight-shooter and I know he usually calls it like he sees it. Earlier, under consideration of the rule, this senior member of the Committee on Appropriations basically laid out the following scenario. He said what the leadership plans to do is to take the easier-to-pass bills, raise the levels of spending on that, and then do so at the expense of lowering spending on other more difficult-to-pass pieces of legislation. What this will end up doing is breaking the budget resolution, breaking any fiscal discipline we have in place for this fiscal year for this Congress. This is a problem, Mr. Chairman. This is a problem because, quite simply, we have a budget deficit now on our hands. We are at war. We are trying to fix the problems in our homeland, so our priorities ought to be a line such as this: Win the war on terrorism, give the troops what they need, win the war on our homeland security, fix those vulnerabilities that we have here in the country, make sure that our domestic infrastructure is prepared for terrorist attacks. But when it comes to fixing the budget deficit, we realize those are the areas we cannot go to. We need to hold the line on domestic spending. That means we need to have some budget discipline here in this body. But by moving forward with the appropriations process that we are engaging in this evening, and for the rest of the next few months this year, we are unraveling the very process that has a little bit of discipline left in it to try and get our hands around this budget deficit. If we do not fix this budget deficit, Social Security will be dipped into for years. If we do not fix this budget deficit, we are going to see problems in the stock market. The markets are watching this body. The markets are watching to see if we have corporate accountability legislation passing, as we just did today; the markets are watching to see if there is accountability in accounting standards; but the markets are also watching to see if we have budget discipline. If Congress shows no discipline in balancing its budget, the markets are going to react in a way we are not going to like. Mr. Chairman, our constituents are seeing their 401(k)s cut in half, they are seeing the market volatility take place in affecting their very livelihoods. This Congress can do a lot to reinstill confidence in our government, in our fiscal balance sheet, and in the stock market and the markets by making a stride for fiscal discipline. That means taking this bill and the entire process and retooling it so that we actually do meet our budget resolution, a bill we have passed twice just this year through the House of Representatives. We did it once, we deemed it again, and we need to make sure that this budget resolution holds, that we do not break the ceiling on spending. I am afraid the process we have right now is doing just that. That is why I urge passage of this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I thank the chairman of the committee for indulging me. I do want to say one last point: They do a good job. The gentlemen are all here working hard, and I know that this is tough work. But I also know that the American people are watching, and that they want to see this budget deficit dealt with. They want to see fiscal discipline here in Congress. We know how to make it happen, and we know how to make sure that it does not happen. I suggest we do more actions to make sure it does happen.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to put one thing straight. The AARP does not oppose this bill. But for the benefit of Members who are truly listening to this debate and trying to make up their minds, let me point out three distinct differences. The Democratic bill will have the consequence of pushing out private-sector-provided prescription drug coverage. The Republican bill supplements that. What the Democratic bill will do, will have the consequence of making sure that all those employers who are providing prescription drug benefits for their employees do not do so any more so the government will pick it up so we are needlessly forcing taxpayers to pay for a benefit that the private sector is already providing. The Republican bill includes deeper discounts on prescription drugs than the Democrat bill does. The Democrat bill is a $1 trillion-plus bill that will do nothing more than make Medicare go broke faster. We have a problem. We have two problems. We need prescription drug coverage for our seniors. We need to give them access to deep discounts on their price of drugs, and we need to make Medicare solvent for the baby boomer generation. The Democrat bill fails in that area. The Republican bill delivers.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to follow up on what my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), was talking about, and that is this week we here in Congress are considering a prescription drug benefit. But we are doing much more than that; we are working on trying to fix Medicare. Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we realize that when Medicare was created in 1965, it was created at that time to provide comprehensive health care for all seniors over the age of 65. That was the goal of Medicare. It is a good goal. But the problem we face today is in the year 2002 seniors on Medicare are getting 1965 health care. They are not getting the year 2002 health care, because in 1965, we did not have all these wonderful health care technologies. We did not have all these breakthrough prescription drugs. Then it was a take-two-aspirin-and-call-me-in-the-morning kind of society. So Medicare reimbursed people if they needed a procedure, if they needed an operation; and that is how Medicare works today. So what you have seen occur over time is as health care technologies have developed, as we have pioneered pharmaceutical developments and come up with all these breakthrough drugs to make our lives healthier and to make our lives longer, you have seen a big source of cost shifting occurring. So if you need surgery, in many cases today you can have a prescription drug that will help you avoid that surgery, except for the fact that Medicare does not pay for that. So here is what is happening today. Seniors are forced to pay for their own drugs, even though if we were to redesign Medicare today we would obviously have prescription drug coverage as a key component of Medicare. So while Medicare waits until you are sick and then pays for your surgery or your procedure, we could save the government a lot of money and make people much healthier if they had a drug benefit within Medicare to help manage their disease, manage their illness, and prevent chronic illnesses from occurring in the first place. That is what Congress is trying to do today. Mr. Speaker, now that we all agree, and I think you can safely say, I think, that Democrats and Republicans agree that we need to modernize Medicare, we need to improve it with a prescription drug benefit and make the system comprehensive again, like we tried to do in 1965, and make it comprehensive in such a way that Medicare continues to evolve with the times, so 10 years from now in the year 2012 we are not scratching our heads saying ``Gol-darn it, Medicare is only giving people 2002 medicine, and it is 2012 and we need to have the year 2012 medicine.'' That is a very important point in this debate. We need to set up Medicare so it grows with the times; so it adds new benefits and evolves as health care technology evolves. Mr. Speaker, where we are in the difference of debate between the two aisles here today, between the two different approaches on the Democrat side of the aisle and the Republican side of the aisle, is this: on the Republican side of the aisle, we recognize that two-thirds of America's seniors already have some kind of drug coverage or another. About a quarter of the seniors in America today already have their drugs paid for by their former employers. It is a part of their retirement benefit. We want to make sure that we are not going to make someone pay for a benefit that they already have. We also want to make sure that taxpayers, that the government is not going to unnecessarily pay for a benefit that the private sector is already paying for. That is a different problem with the Democrat plan. Their plan is a universal government monopoly, one-size-fits-all plan. It is a take-it- or-leave-it, one-plan plan, and what the consequence of that will be is it will displace all that private sector-provided health care benefits. All those private sector-provided drug plans will now be displaced and taken up by Medicare and the taxpayers. The way we look at it is this: if a former employer is paying for the drugs of their retirees, why should the government tell them, do not bother paying for your retiree's retirement benefit because the government and taxpayers are going to pick it up? What we want to do is this: we want to make sure that everybody on Medicare has access to a comprehensive drug coverage plan, but we do not want to force them into the government plan. We want seniors to have a choice of plans that can fit their need and their benefit. It should be voluntary. If you already have a comprehensive benefit, you do not have to take this plan; and you should be able to get a plan that fits your need. That is what we accomplish. We have catastrophic coverage for all seniors that kicks in at $3,800. We have co-insurance on the first $2,000 of drugs. The one advantage that the Republican plan has that the Democrats do not is that we achieve deep discounts in prices of all drugs for senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of our plan. I think it is a superior plan. I think it does more to extend the solvency of Medicare, so we can save this program for the baby boomers. The alternative plan on the other side of the aisle actually brings the insolvency of Medicare up earlier, it is irresponsible, it bankrupts Medicare and forces seniors into a one-size-fits-all government plan and displaces private sector involvement in Medicare.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I thank the gentleman from Ohio for all his hard work on this issue. We have heard a lot of different issues being brought to the floor today. We have heard the issues surrounding Enron. Well, I would like to inform my colleagues that we passed two pieces of comprehensive legislation dealing with Enron already in this Congress on the floor of the House. We have heard about a very valid issue of inversions, a new issue of inversions, which we are working on hopefully in a bipartisan way on the Committee on Ways and Means to address. What this issue is about today is about retirement, and I think in a valid point that has not been made, it is about our current economy. Mr. Speaker, the real economy is growing quite well right now. New housing starts are doing really well. Manufacturing is getting back on its feet. The real economy is growing except for the equity markets. Our stock market is very shaky right now, and if our stock market continues to be shaky going on for another 6 months, that is going to hit consumer confidence, and that is going to take a real pound of flesh out of our economy. So we have a problem in this economy, and that is that the equity markets are not responding well, and we may have some real problems that are going to hit consumer confidence in this economy if we do not respond. This issue that we are dealing with today speaks directly to our equity markets. Twenty-six percent of our equity markets are held by pension assets. Twelve percent of our taxable bond markets are held by pension assets. This issue speaks to the whole entire issue of retirement security, of pensions, of letting people save for their retirement, and the uncertainty in the tax law is creating uncertainty in our equity markets. When the vast majority of bondholders and stockholders do not know what the tax laws are going to be 8 years from now, that is producing a lot of uncertainty in our equity markets. For example, IRAs in 8 years, if this legislation does not pass, are going to be cut by 50 percent; 401(k) plans which we are trying to encourage, are going to have to be cut back by a third in 8 years if this legislation does not pass. So it really is a matter of life or death for a lot of retirees. It is really a matter of whether we are going to get our economy on its feet and revive our struggling equity markets or not. So I urge that we focus on the issue at hand, that we pass this issue before us, and, Mr. Speaker, that we deal with these other issues that we need to be dealing with when that legislation comes to the floor.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, last night in the Committee on Ways and Means we marked up the biggest change in Medicare in 37 years. It was a good change. What we did in the Committee on Ways and Means last night was provide a comprehensive prescription drug benefit for seniors. We recognize on both sides of the aisle that seniors have problems paying for their medicines. Medicare is an outdated program. It was written in 1965, and in 2002 it is basically giving seniors 1965 health care. What we have accomplished in this committee and what we are about to accomplish in this Congress is to give seniors a prescription drug benefit that gives them the choice of plans, comprehensive benefits, catastrophic stop- loss coverage, a discount in the price of their drugs, and coverage from dollar one. This is important, Mr. Speaker, because we also recognize the need that low income seniors who cannot afford deductibles and premiums have a fully subsidized prescription drug benefit. When the other side gnashes their teeth, just remember this: We are acting, we are moving, and we are providing a comprehensive prescription drug benefit for all seniors on Medicare.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time and for her leadership on eliminating the death tax. The gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) has been a tireless leader in this effort. What we are hearing today from the other side are two emotions: Fear and envy. Every issue that seems to come to the floor these days, they try to tap into the emotions of fear and envy, using bogus statistics like a $4 trillion tax cut, using these emotional attributes that the super rich are going to get away with murder. Mr. Speaker, the super rich are going to stay rich even with the death tax in place. What happens with the death tax is we lose jobs in America. The greatest killer of the transfer of businesses from one generation to the next is the death tax. Take into consideration what is going to happen on New Year's Day 2011 after New Year's Eve 2010 if this bill is not passed. On New Year's Eve, the estate tax on a small business or a family farm in value of $3 million will be zero. On New Year's Day, the next day, in 2011, that farmer, that small business person who may happen to pass away at 12:01 a.m. rather than 11:59 p.m. will have an $800,000 tax bill. This is a killer of jobs. This is a killer of small businesses. More than 70 percent of family businesses do not survive the second generation, Mr. Speaker; 87 percent do not make it to the third generation. Sixty percent of small business owners report that they would create new jobs over the coming year if the estate taxes were eliminated. This is about fairness, this is about doing the right thing, and it is about making sure that when you die, you do not visit the undertaker and the IRS agent on the same day. This is an issue about fairness. This is an issue about jobs. We are trying to appeal to the emotions of hope and opportunity and fairness on this side of the aisle, not the emotions of fear, envy and hyperbole.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to quickly respond to the last speaker about tax cuts being the source of the loss of the surplus this past year. That is simply not the case. Seventy-three percent of the loss of the surplus this past year came because our economy went into a recession. People lost their jobs and they did not pay taxes, and the surplus dried up because we went into recession. These tax cuts will grow the economy and get us back on track and grow those surpluses.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to clarify the last speaker. According to the most recent figures from the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, this bill will not dip into Social Security. This bill will still leave an on-budget or non-Social Security surplus in both the years 2011 and 2012, the years which we are discussing.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I see my friend from Tennessee. I am under 35 and I am not interested in seeing my generation get hit with the single largest tax increase in American history in the year 2011 if this bill does not pass. The score of this bill assumes that you are going to have a huge tax increase and if we do not have that huge tax increase, it is going to cost the government money. All we are proposing is to keep taxes constant, level. Not cutting them, keeping them level. You are saying we want a big tax increase and if we do not get it, it is going to cost us money somehow.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify two errors from the last speaker. First of all, in 8 years we are not talking about cutting taxes. In 8 years we are talking about keeping them constant and not raising taxes. The $4 trillion figure that has been mentioned repeatedly is a nonexistent figure. It is a bogus figure. It is not supported by CBO or by the Joint Tax. It is a dreamed-up Washington math figure, and it should be disregarded by those who are watching this debate.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. The reason we introduced this bill, to reverse this arcane Senate rule that caused this problem, was to give the American taxpayer certainty so they know how to plan for the future, and to strike a blow for fairness and justice. This issue, contrary to what we are hearing from the Democrats, is not an attempt to get another tax cut. We are not raising taxes, we are not cutting taxes, we are trying to keep taxes steady. If we do not pass this repeal of the sunset, we are raising taxes. Specifically, a family of 4 earning $36,268 will have their taxes raised in 2011 by $2,035; a family of 4 earning $46,756 will have their taxes go up in 1 year by $3,856; a family of 4 earning almost $85,000 will see a tax bill on January 1, 2011, of $8,000. Mr. Speaker, I do not think Members realize the magnitude of the moment that is coming if we do not repeal this sunset. What will happen from New Year's Eve to New Year's Day, December 31, 2010, to January 1, 2011, will be this: The IRA contribution limit from New Year's Eve to New Year's Day will go from $5,000 down to $2,000; on New Year's Eve to New Year's Day that year, the education IRA will go from $2,000 down to $500; on New Year's Eve to New Year's Day in that year, the 401(k) limit plans will be cut from a $15,000 cap to $10,500. Every 401(k) plan in America will have to be cut by a third on that day in 2011. Mr. Speaker, the death tax on December 31, 2010, will be zero percent; the next day it will be 55 percent beginning on estates over $675,000. Income taxes: Small businesses right now pay a higher income tax rate than the largest corporations of America. Their taxes will be 35 percent on New Year's Eve; the next day, 39.6 percent, larger than the taxes paid by IBM or Chrysler or any large operation. The child tax credit will go from $1,000 down to $500, and the marriage tax penalty will come back to haunt us. That is what awaits us on New Year's Day, January 1, 2011, if we do not repeal this arcane Senate rule sunset. This is a major tax increase if we do not act today.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, due to a death in the family, I was absent for Roll Call Votes No. 80 through 92 from April 9, 2002 through April 11, 2002. 1 have listed below how I would have voted had I been present. On Vote No. 80, to approve the Journal, I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call Vote No. 81, H. Res. 377, recognizing Ellis island Medal of Honor and commending the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations, I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call Vote No. 82, H.R. 3958, the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge Settlement Act, I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Calf Vote No. 83, on agreeing to an amendment introduced by the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, to H.R. 3925, The Digital Tech Corps Act of 2002, 1 would have voted ``No.'' On Roll Call Vote No. 84, H. Res. 363, congratulating the people of Utah, the Salt Lake Organizing Committee and the athletes of the world for a successful and inspiring 2002 Olympic Winter Games, I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call Vote No. 85, H.R. 3991, the Taxpayer Protection and IRS Accountability Act, I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call Vote No. 86, on a motion to instruct conferees to H.R. 2646, the Farm Security Act, ``Yea.'' On Roll Call Vote No. 87, on ordering the Previous Question, I would have voted, ``Yea.'' On Roll Call Vote No. 88, H. Res. 386, the rule to consider H.R. 3762, the Pension Security Act, I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call Vote No. 89, on approving the Journal, I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call Vote No. 90, on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. Miller, Substitute Amendment to H.R. 3762, the Pension Security Act, I would have voted, ``No.'' On Roll Call Vote No. 91, on the motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 3762, the Pension Security Act, I would have voted, ``No.'' On Roll Call Vote No. 92, on final passage of H.R. 3762, the Pension Security Act, I would have voted ``Yea.''

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Under the Bush tax cut, over 3 million families are being taken off the Federal income tax roles and would be put back on, they would have new taxes reimposed back on them, if this tax bill is not made permanent?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I appreciate that comment. That is what is so crazy about this arcane rule in the other body that was forced into this legislation that sunset this tax cut in the year 2011. If this legislation that we are now proposing does not pass, on the year 2011, the estate tax goes from zero to 55 percent. The education IRAs go from a $2,000 limit back down to $500. The IRAs, individual retirement accounts, go from a $5,000 per year limit back down to $2,000. 401(k)s go back from $15,000 per year down to $10,500. The marriage tax penalty comes back to haunt us. All of those things that we will have been accustomed to over the decade, all of those tax inequities, marriage tax penalty, estate tax, taxing small businesses at a higher rate than corporations, all will come back in that one year to sock it to the American economy. That is one thing that I think we need to bear in mind. What is this going to do to our economy? I hear it from so many small business members and entrepreneurs and farmers in my district, that they say, we cannot plan appropriately for the future. There is so much hesitancy built into the marketplace all across America because they do not know as small business men and women whether they can bank on the fact that these tax laws are going to be made permanent. So they withhold that investment. They do not take that extra risk. The bank will not give them credit because they do not know what is going to happen in the future with respect to tax law. So we see a hesitancy built into the marketplace. That means less risk, less job creation, less economic growth.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I want to point out also the score the gentleman mentioned, the revenue cost that is assumed by the Congressional Budget Office. What is interesting about that score is not so much that it is $374 billion out of a surplus of $2.3 trillion. It is that that is the most dour and pessimistic, conservative score anybody could come up with, because that score assumes that people will not change their behavior when their taxes are cut. That score denies the assumption that if we lock in permanency we are going to unleash a lot of investment out there. When we lock in certainty to the small American businessman and businesswoman and entrepreneur, that, yes, this tax law is permanent and now you can move on with certainty to expand your job and invest, that we are going to get positive economic growth out of that, I believe that the economic positive benefits we are going to get out of this bill will more than make up for a lot of the revenue costs we are assuming. They assume no one makes a change if their taxes are changed. They assume no positive economic growth is derived from a lowering of marginal income tax rates or repeal of the estate tax. They just assume it is a loss of revenue to the government. So even though we now can point out that the loss of revenue according to our budget keepers is minuscule in comparison to the size of the surplus over the decade, they do not point out all of those positive economic benefits, the jobs that will be created, the investment that will be unleashed, by making certainty in this tax bill.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. That is exactly right. That is one of the injustices, one of the fairness issues we fixed in this tax bill. We finally lowered the small business tax rate to be equal with the corporate tax rate. Because before this tax cut, it was higher than that. Not only do we help Americans save for their retirement, not only do we repeal the estate tax in this bill, the single greatest killer of transfer of your business to the next generation, not only did we repeal the marriage penalty and not only did we lower the small business tax rate to that level of the large corporate tax rate, what we did was we helped people reinvest in their businesses, we helped people keep more of their own money. What is going to happen if this legislation to make this tax cut permanent does not pass is we will be imposing on January 1, 2011, the single largest tax increase in American history in any given year. We are going to impose on the American taxpayer a $125 billion tax increase that year. So, for example, if you are a small business owner or a family farmer and your estate is worth, they say, $3 million, there are a lot of small family farms in Wisconsin that are worth well more than $3 million. They have a lot of assets locked up in combines, in land, in barns and other kinds of things. If you are a small business owner and you own some kind of small distribution business, you have some vans and trucks and a factory, $3 million can add up very quickly. If you died in the year 2010, you do not pay an estate tax. That is the correct way to do it, because you already paid taxes on all the money you earned while you were living. But if that person with the $3 million estate dies on January 1, 2011, that person is going to have to pay $800,000 in estate tax. Just think of this. If you die in the year 2010 when the estate tax is repealed, no tax. If you die the next year, $800,000.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding. First before I contribute, I would like to thank the two of you gentlemen for your leadership on this issue. This is my first year on the Committee on Ways and Means. I have long known about the gentleman from Illinois' work on repealing the marriage penalty. He is the reason the marriage penalty is repealed in this legislation. He deserves the credit for that. And the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) who is my lead partner on this bill is the leading advocate for agriculture and tax policy and helping farmers, in Congress, I would add. I want to thank him for allowing me to join him in proposing this legislation and being his coauthor on this legislation to make this tax cut permanent. I have been watching the debate. It seems that you can wrap it up into four big issues. This tax bill, which we all worked very hard to pass, the President proposed, we worked on it in the Committee on Ways and Means, we passed it bipartisanly through the House, through the Senate and got it signed into law, this tax cut fixes four big inequities. It brings fairness to four major issues. As the gentleman from Illinois has championed, it brought fairness to the issue of the marriage penalty. It reduced and repealed the marriage tax penalty. But it did many other things. On the retirement end, we have a pension system that before this tax bill was written at a time in our pension laws, in our economy, when people did not change jobs that much. What we did in this bill was update our pension laws so people could move their pensions with them as they change jobs. We fixed a lot of the problems that have been experienced with the Tax Code in the new economy. They have been fixed in this bill. We increased the act for businesses to offer higher 401(k) matches to their employees. We increased the cap on 401(k)s. We increased the cap on IRAs from $2,000 to $5,000. That is another big problem, a big fairness issue that we restored in this bill. We also repealed the estate tax, a tax that has been the single greatest killer of the transfer of family farms and small businesses on to the next generation. And what we did in income tax rates, and as you gentlemen mentioned, almost 80 percent of the top rate bracket filers file as individuals, meaning the small businessmen and women of America are not corporations, they are not C corps, they do not file their taxes as large corporations, they file their taxes as subchapter S corps, as sole proprietorships. Therefore, they pay individual tax rates. What happens right now under the tax law, we are taxing small businesses at a rate higher than we tax the largest corporations. So the small business men and women of America on Main Street USA, in the barber shops, and all the small manufacturers, they were being taxed before this tax bill at nearly 40 percent, while we were taxing the largest corporations of America, IBM, General Motors, Chrysler at 35 percent. This tax bill lowers that small business tax rate to the same tax rate as large corporations.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. If the gentleman will yield on that point, what was that number again?