Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2146, Defending Public Safety Employees' Retirement Act, currently under consideration.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Welcome back, everybody. I have to admit, I am a little disappointed that we are back here today. Last week, a bipartisan majority stepped up to pass trade promotion authority. That vote showed that Republicans and Democrats can still come together to do what is right for this country. It was a vote that I am very proud of. Unfortunately, many of our friends on the other side of the aisle would not stand with their President and voted to sacrifice a program that they support--a program that they asked for--in order to block our path. It was disappointing, but we are not going to be discouraged. That is why we are back here today. Enacting trade promotion authority is critical for our economy and our national security, and so we are going to get it done here today. Why do we need TPA? Well, Mr. Speaker, it is pretty easy, an easy question to answer--because we need more trade. Ninety-five percent of the world's consumers don't live in America. They live in other countries. If we want to make more things here and sell them there, then we need to tear down those trade barriers that make American goods and services more expensive. We know that trade is good for our economy. One in five jobs in America is already tied to trade, and they pay on average 18 percent more. We also need more trade to bolster our foreign policy and our national security. Stronger economic ties lead to stronger security ties. More market share means more influence. That is why so many national security voices, former military leaders, former Secretaries of Defense, former Secretaries of State have all called on Congress to pass TPA. They understand what is at stake here, Mr. Speaker. What is at stake here is no less than America's credibility because the rules of the global economy are being written right now. The question is: Who is going to write those rules? Will it be the United States and our allies or will it be other nations that don't share our values or don't share our commitment to free enterprise and the rule of law? Our friends in Asia and Europe are getting ready to place their bets. They want to sign up for American-style free enterprise, but they need to know that the United States is going to stand strong as a reliable ally, as a reliable trading partner before they do that. That is what TPA is all about. So how does it work? We have heard all kinds of crazy misinformation spread by the opponents of trade. I mean, crazy stuff, really. Let me, one more time, explain what TPA is and what TPA is not. TPA is a process; it is not an agreement. It is a process that gives us the best shot at getting a good trade agreement. It is a process, dating back decades, that Congress has used to insert itself into trade negotiations in order to provide more accountability and more transparency to the administration, to the President. This TPA has more transparency and more accountability than any version ever before. It lays out 150 objectives and guidelines that the administration must follow while negotiating a trade deal. These are our priorities. If the President wants an agreement, then he must meet to address these priorities. He must meet these guidelines in order to get it passed through Congress. This TPA also requires that the administration consults with Congress during the negotiations: Give us access to all of the text, provide timely briefings on demand, allow Members to attend the negotiating rounds as accredited advisers if they want to. If we are here in session, we can send our people. That is what the Zinke amendment accomplishes. Finally, perhaps most importantly, Mr. Speaker, TPA ensures that the American people can read any trade agreement, every trade agreement long before anyone is asked to vote on it--60 days. An agreement must be made public and posted online for 60 days before it can even be sent to Congress. This turns fast track into slow track. Mr. Speaker, it is transparency, it is effective oversight, and it is accountability because if the President doesn't meet these requirements or doesn't follow the negotiating objectives, we can turn TPA off for that agreement. We can cancel the vote, we can amend the agreement, or we can stop it entirely. So it is ultimately, we, Congress, we always have the final say. No agreement takes effect, no laws are changed unless we vote to allow it. This process, TPA, creates a pact between Congress and the administration that allows our trading partners to know that we speak with one voice. It allows them to make their best efforts, knowing that as long as the administration follows TPA, Congress won't try to rewrite an agreement later. In other words, it gives America credibility, Mr. Speaker. And, boy, do we need credibility right now. Make no mistake, all of my colleagues, make no mistake: the world is watching us; they are watching this vote. The foreign policy failures of the last few years, not to mention the stunt pulled here last week, have capitals all around the world wondering if America still has it. Are we still the leader? Are we still the Republic that other countries aspire to be? They want to know that we are still willing to engage, still willing to lead, that we are still a nation that is out front. Or are we in retreat and decline? We are here today to answer that question again. America does not retreat; America leads. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for TPA. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a senior member of the House Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. How much time remains for both sides?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. We are the only two speakers left on our side. Because of deference to our Members from South Carolina who are trying to get home to this tragedy, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi), and then I am just going to hold to close just for our South Carolina Members.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. For those who are coming on the floor protesting this particular process from the minority, it is the stunt pulled last week that brought about this process. We have talked a lot about what TPA is. It is a process, not a trade agreement. I want every Member in this body to think about what this vote represents. It is one that will speak loudly about our political system: Can it still work? It is a vote about what kind of Congress we want to be: Will we empower ourselves in trade agreements or just let the administration do whatever it wants? It is a vote about what kind of country we want to have: Are we still committed to leading? Are we still the symbol of freedom in free enterprise? Mr. Speaker, this is a vote for accountability and for transparency. This is a vote for a stronger economy and higher wages. This is a vote for our system of free enterprise. This is a vote for American leadership. This is a vote to declare that America still has it. This is a vote to reestablish America's credibility. The world is watching. Vote ``yes.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), the author of the legislation.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time allotment remaining?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. It is a great bill. We should pass it. IPAB is a bad agency. It should not have been created in the first place. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), the author of this legislation, be permitted to control the time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 319, I call up the bill (H.R. 160) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on medical devices, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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. 1314, the Trade Act of 2015, currently under consideration.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as may I consume. Mr. Speaker, the question before us today is really pretty simple: Is America going to shape the global economy or is it going to shape us? Ninety-five percent of the world's consumers, they don't live in this country. They live in other countries. So if we want to create more jobs in America, we have got to make more things here in America and sell them over there. In fact, one out of every five jobs in America already today depends on trade, and you know what, that is a good thing because these jobs pay more. They pay on average 18 percent more. But while the world is moving full steam ahead we have been standing still, Mr. Speaker. We haven't completed a trade agreement in years. Today, there are 262 free trade agreements in place across the world. We are a party to 14. Since 2007, when the last version of trade promotion authority expired, there have been 100 trade agreements negotiated and signed. The U.S. is a party to none of those. China is negotiating seven agreements right now, including one with 16 countries. In the global economy, if you are standing still, you are falling behind because all these other countries are negotiating agreements without us. What that basically means is other countries are lowering their trade barriers between those countries. As a result of them lowering their trade barriers, making their products more affordable, getting more market share, they are putting up barriers against our products, making it harder for us to get access to those markets. Big companies can set up a factory in another country, make something there, and sell it there. Getting trade agreements means removing those barriers so we keep those factories here, so all businesses, big and small, can make things in America, grow things in America, and sell them overseas. Let me just give you an example. Since the year 2000 there have been 48 trade agreements in East Asia alone. America has been a party to only two of them, and as a result of that, our share of their imports fell by 42 percent. The rules of the global economy are being written right now, Mr. Speaker. That is not the question. The question is: Are we going to write the rules of the global economy with our allies or are we going to let other countries write the rules, such as China? This is why H.R. 1314, the Trade Act, would establish TPA, or trade promotion authority. Now, there has been a lot of confusion about this bill, a lot of honest confusion and sometimes a lot of intentional confusion. Let me say really clearly what this bill is. TPA is not a trade deal. TPA is not a trade agreement. TPA is a process for negotiating a trade agreement. Congress is not considering a trade agreement today. There is no secret agreement that nobody has read that is being voted on today. All we are voting on today is a process by which Congress considers trade agreements. The earliest we would do so would be in the fall, at the earliest. Why should we care about this process? Because a good process gets us a good result. This TPA will give us the leverage that we, in Congress, need to get a fair deal for the American worker because when other countries know that the deal that they agreed to is a deal Congress will vote on they will give us their best offers. Countries aren't going to give us a good agreement if they have to negotiate with 535 people. Here is how it works. Congress says to the President, when you submit a trade agreement, we will give you an up-or-down vote on three conditions. First, you have got to pursue specific negotiating objectives, 150 of them. Here is what we want to see in a trade agreement and here is what cannot be in a trade agreement. Second, you have got to keep us informed. You have got to regularly consult with Congress. Congress must have access to all of the negotiating texts. Right now, it is whatever the administration chooses to give us. They control it. They decide on their terms. With TPA, Congress says no, no, no; we, in Congress, get access to these negotiating documents while it is being negotiated. We, in Congress, are accredited to go to the negotiations if we want to, and with the Zinke protocol, which we added to this, if we ourselves can't make it, we will send representatives for ourselves to these negotiations. Third, and perhaps most importantly, transparency. In the old days, they used to call this thing fast track. President goes out and gets an agreement and then wham, whizzes it through, has Congress vote on it, it is in law, everybody's wondering what the heck just happened, what is in this thing. Not again. No more. When an agreement is reached, when America gets an agreement with other countries, before the President can even sign off on it, we make it public for 60 days, up on the Internet, everybody can read it for themselves and see what it is. That is in this law. Never done that before. And then the President can sign it, but when he signs it, it doesn't go into effect. When he signs it, it just means he sends it to Congress, and then Congress considers it. Congress considers it and Congress determines whether it is going to happen or not. It is a bill like any other bill. Congress has to pass it. They have to affirmatively pass it for it to go into effect, and if the House of Representatives doesn't like the trade agreement and they vote it down with a simple majority vote, it doesn't happen. That is what this bill does. We have the final say. I understand a lot of our Members, especially on our side of the aisle, they don't trust this administration. Join the club. Neither do I. That is precisely why I support this bill. TPA puts Congress in the driver's seat. Mr. Speaker, the world is watching this. The world is watching whether or not--and they are trying to make a decision--is America still America or is America in retreat? Our allies want our leadership. Our adversaries are measuring how much we stack up. Our enemies would love for us to retreat. The world is watching as to whether or not America is going to lead in the world, whether America in the dawn of the 21st century is going to take command of writing the rules of the global economy or cede that command to other countries. If we establish TPA, we are saying, on a bipartisan basis, we want America to lead; we believe in our country; we believe in our workers; we believe in our economy; we want to open up markets so that we can use American ingenuity and American workers to create American jobs. So we can sell our goods and our services and our products overseas so we can create more good-paying jobs right here at home. That is what this is about. It is about getting us on the playing field. There have been 100 trade agreements negotiated, signed since 2007 when TPA last expired. We are a party to zero of those. The rest of the world is moving around. The rest of the world is getting better deals. The rest of the world is freezing us out. We have got to get back in this game and lead this game and define this game. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on the Budget, Washington, DC, May 14, 2015. Hon. Paul Ryan, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Ryan: I am writing regarding H.R. 1890, the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015, as amended, which the Committee on Ways and Means reported on April 23, 2015. The bill contains provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget. The Committee on the Budget did not take any action on H.R. 1890 prior to being discharged. By foregoing consideration of H.R. 1890, as amended, the Committee on the Budget does not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this bill or similar legislation and that the Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as this bill or similar legislation moves forward so that the Committee may address any remaining issues that fall within its jurisdiction. The Committee on the Budget also reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this or similar legislation, and requests your support of any such request. We appreciate your cooperation and look forward to working with you as this bill moves through the Congress. Sincerely, Tom Price, M.D., Chairman, Committee on the Budget.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 305, I call up the bill (H.R. 1314) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a right to an administrative appeal relating to adverse determinations of tax-exempt status of certain organizations, with the Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi) be permitted to control the time on our side.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, let me inquire as to the time remaining.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, the former chairman of the Trade Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, and a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank my friend for his question. I agree that offset agreements distort fair trade. Under TPA, Congress will establish negotiating objectives for the President to seek more open market access for U.S. companies in the reduction, elimination, or prevention of trade distortion and localization barriers. Thus, these provisions will direct the President to seek to curb our negotiating partners' insistence on the use of offset agreements.

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