Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his support and his efforts to address this very important matter. I would just like to say, I have discussed this matter several times on several occasions with the gentleman from Arizona and I really appreciate the professionalism and the courtesy that has been extended toward me in this matter, and I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona on behalf of the residents of Racine, Wisconsin. This is exciting for us and we really appreciate all of the gentleman's help. Amendment Offered by Mr. Wynn

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Arizona. Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill directs the U.S. Customs Service that it shall not, in the event of a reorganization of field operations, reduce the level of service to the area served by the port of Racine, Wisconsin, below the level of service provided in the year 2000. As the gentleman from Arizona knows, earlier this year, the U.S. Customs Service issued a notice of proposed rulemaking announcing their intention to close down their operations in Racine, Wisconsin. Unfortunately, the U.S. Customs Service continues to disregard the Racine community and the negative impact this proposal would have on southeastern Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for recognizing the need for continued Customs Service in Racine and including this requirement in the underlying bill. I want to take this opportunity to clarify that Racine will receive no change in service under any proposal put forth by the U.S. Customs Service.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the International Monetary Stability Act of 2000. This bill would give countries who have been seriously considering using the U.S. dollar as their national currency the incentive to do so. When a foreign country grants the U.S. dollar legal tender in place of its own currency, that country dollarizes. This bill would serve to encourage such dollarization. Dollarization is an extremely important issue for developing countries seeking monetary stability and economic growth in the Western Hemisphere. Of course, dollarization is no panacea. However, sound money combined with a sound fiscal policy--or I would even posit as a precursor to a sound fiscal policy--and property rights, and a viable rule of law, helps to ensure that dollarization can boost development in growing economies. Today, countries can dollarize without consulting the Federal Reserve or the U.S. Treasury. There is no need for the Fed to be the world's lender of last resort by opening up its discount window to dollarized countries. Like Panama, countries can maintain liquidity through the private banking system. The Fed will never be responsible for supervising foreign banks. Not only would sovereign governments disapprove of the United States regulating their private banking system, I would imagine that the Fed has no desire to grant foreign banks the same privileges that U.S. banks receive without making foreign banks pay for such protection. The Fed already takes the international circumstances into account when formulating policy. If you remember back to the end of 1998, the Fed lowered interest rates three times to stem contagion, not because of any domestic considerations. Regardless, with a consistent law outlining dollarization agreements with the United States, countries understand from the beginning that the Fed will not act as their central bank. There are significant benefits to the United States should more countries choose to dollarize. There would be a decrease in cases of dumping since foreign countries would lose the ability to devalue against the dollar to gain trade advantage, and U.S. businesses would find it easier to invest in these countries since currency risk and inflation risk are greatly diminished. Likewise, dollarization lowers monetary instability within dollarized countries and increases the living standards of their citizens. During Senate hearings on dollarization, Judy Shelton, of Empower America, eloquently described the entrepreneurial spirit within Mexico but contrasted this optimism with a scenario of high interest rates and scarce bank loans for businesses. Indeed, sporadic devaluations and politically derived inflation negate expectations that a domestic currency can be a meaningful store of future value. Inflation is directly linked to interest rates. Inflation expectations act as an interest rate premium. When inflation is expected to go up, interest rates are high. As we have seen lately in the United States in our own debate over rising interest rates, low rates reduce the cost of borrowing and increase prosperity, while higher rates raise the cost of capital and slow economic growth. For most Latin American countries, dollarization should lower their interest rates to within 4 percent of U.S. rates, depending on political and fiscal factors. Further, because dollarization eliminates the ability of foreign central banks to manipulate money supply, which I would argue is a benefit of dollarization and not a cost as some analysts do, inflation is tied to U.S. inflation. My bill, the International Monetary Stability Act of 2000, would give countries who have been seriously considering using the U.S. dollar as their national currency the incentive to do so. A couple of changes have been made since I first introduced the original bill last fall in order to take into account concerns raised by the Treasury Department during Senate hearings. One important change includes the ability of the Treasury to consider money laundering as a factor for deciding whether to certify a country for seigniorage sharing. In general, enacting this legislation would set up a structure in which the U.S. Treasury would have the discretion to promote official dollarization in emerging market countries by offering to rebate 85% of the resulting increase in U.S. seigniorage earnings. Part of the remaining 15% would be distributed to countries like Panama that have already dollarized, but the majority of the 15% would be deposited at the Treasury Department as government revenue. Additionally, this bill would make it explicitly clear that the United States has no obligation to serve as a lender of last resort to dollarized countries, consider their economic conditions in setting monetary policy or supervise their banks. I would like to conclude by repeating an old quote from Treasury Secretary Larry Summers. Back in 1992, when he was at the World Bank, Secretary Summers said ``finding ways of bribing people to dollarize, or at least give back the extra seigniorage that is earned when dollarization takes place, ought to be an international priority. For the world as a whole, the advantages of dollarization seem clear to me.'' Congressional leadership in exchange rate policies such as dollarization protects our own economy. Every foreign devaluation affects our economy through international trade and through the equity markets. American companies need reliable currencies to make investment decisions abroad; and American workers need to know countries cannot competitively devalue in an effort to lower foreign worker wages. The ramifications of an Asian-style economic collapse in Latin America, our own back yard, call for legislation that will help these countries embrace consistent economic growth. I strongly believe that strengthening global economies, especially those in the Western Hemisphere, by encouraging dollarization is in America's best interest.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It does not cut off the research and development. I am not suggesting that I am opposing the goal of this project, what it does it says do not go forward with the construction because of these amazing mismanagement problems, because of these phenomenal cost overruns, because of the fact that this project has been delayed in its implementation due to these problems for years. What this amendment does, it says if you cannot build the construction, work on the R&D. Mr. Chairman, $914 million has been spent on this, yet 5 percent of the infrastructure and the laser components are completed. This amendment simply says let us watch our taxpayers' dollars. Congress asked the DOE to actually take a look at this. Congress asked the GAO to get back to us to see if these problems had been dealt with. We have not heard from the DOE. We have not heard from the GAO yet. I would suggest that on behalf of our taxpayers that we represent, let us wait till we hear from them before obligating this money, and let us spend it on research and development in the meantime.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a co-sponsor of this amendment.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this NIF project is over budget. It is behind schedule. It has experienced several technical difficulties and problems. It has been criticized by the other labs, and it has been plagued with mismanagement. For example, first in the FY 2000 energy and water appropriations bill, the committee asked the DOE for a rebaselining of costs by June 1 of 2000 for this year's appropriations. However, the DOE has pushed off this deadline until mid-September, conveniently past the appropriations date. Given the fact that the GAO report has cited so many problems with the management and the construction of this facility, which DOE acknowledges, these overruns should not be continued. Congress should not appropriate these funds until we have that rebaselining report. Second, a GAO report again was requested by the House Committee on Science last September in 1999. However, we still do not have this report yet, but we have found some preliminary findings from the draft report which is imminently due, yet not in time for this appropriations bill. It shows that the cost estimates are still being overrun. It shows that a project management assessment was required as part of the DOD authorization bill in this year, and that has not been done. It shows that this project began as a $1.2 billion project in 1997 and then slipped to $2.1 billion in the year 2000, according to the DOE. Now the GAO is telling us this thing is going to cost us between $3.6 billion and $4 billion. This has tripled in costs over the last 3 years alone, the management problems, the cost overruns, the fact that the other laboratories, Sandia specifically, is saying this ought to be scaled back, because it does pilfer from other laboratory programs, which seeks to serve the same purposes. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for yielding, and I would like to thank him for his leadership on this issue. I would like to reinforce the importance of funding for meth lab cleanup for Wisconsin and the majority of rural America. Our local law enforcement agencies do not possess the resources to fund meth lab cleanup, and therefore we currently have two meth labs in my district that are sitting and waiting until funds can be made available from the DEA to clean them up. This presents a serious safety and environmental danger. I would also like to inquire of the gentleman from Kentucky if he will work to continue to address the shortfall in the current fiscal year for the meth lab cleanup.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out to the gentleman from Florida that this amendment also allows Members to come with specific amounts set to debt reduction just like the Toomey amendment does. Also, I think we addressed the bicameral flexibility in this amendment, because it is half of the House, half of the Senate becomes the total of the amount that is passed in the lock box and the conference report. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge), a member of the minority party.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, in my last 30 seconds, I would just like to point out that this has been around before. All it does is says, a Member of Congress, if they want to cut spending in an appropriations bill, can dedicate that savings to another bill, to another program that is more valuable, or to pay off the debt. Mr. Chairman, 328 members of this Congress voted for this, 45 appropriators. If a Member wants to find out, if he or she wants to be consistent with their vote when we vote on this, come on down, we have a list right here. Mr. Chairman, this is scored by the Citizens Against Government Waste, it is scored by the National Taxpayer Union. It is a common sense amendment, and I urge its passage.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to add that this gimmick has been supported by 328 Members of this body. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, let me just briefly explain what this amendment does. This is the amendment we have often called the appropriations lock box amendment. This is an amendment that has been here before, in the 102nd Congress, the 103rd Congress, the 104th Congress, and the 105th Congress, and passed by voice vote earlier this year. This amendment has been voted on or cosponsored by 328 Members of this body; 328 Members of the minority side and the majority side have already either cosponsored this amendment or voted for this amendment. Yet for some reason today, it is experiencing incredible opposition. What this amendment does is allow any Member of Congress to come to the floor with an amendment to cut or reduce spending on a given appropriations and use that savings to either dedicate it toward another program or to dedicate it toward debt reduction. It does not hamper us in negotiations with the Senate. The savings is realized after the conference report is passed. What this does is it says if you want to eliminate spending in the Federal Government and you want to dedicate that spending toward reducing our national debt, you may do so. However, under the crazy rules of the House today, that is not the case. If you come here to the floor and pass an amendment to cut spending, it will be spent somewhere else in the Federal Government. But that is not the will of most Members of Congress. That is not the desire. So what this amendment says is you get the choice, whether your savings will go toward debt reduction or other spending. That is not the case today. I might add that this has been a bipartisan amendment; it is a bipartisan amendment today. In the 103rd Congress it was considered. In 1994, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and Mr. Zeliff introduced a similar law. The President had an executive order in 1994 very similar to this. Congressman Crapo, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and former Representative Schumer, now a Senator, introduced legislation like this a couple of Congresses ago. In the 103rd Congress, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), and Congressman Penny introduced similar legislation. More recently, in 1995, the House adopted a very similar piece of legislation to an appropriations bill by a vote of 364 to 59. Mr. Chairman, this is widely accepted policy. I urge passage of the amendment.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), and in doing so I would like to add I appreciate my colleague from Wisconsin. He is one of the Members who has been consistent on this issue in opposing this policy. I might add that 45 members of our current Committee on Appropriations either cosponsored or voted for this policy.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and I agree with much of what they are saying. I too am a member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities and Government Sponsored Enterprises of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. I too am very concerned about the taxpayer exposure that the GSEs provide. I am concerned about the over extension of capital risk. But I believe we are getting the cart in front of the horse on this amendment. What OFHEO has had is a plus-up of about 15 percent over the last 4 years. OFHEO has met its budget requests over the last 4 years. The issue that we are dealing with in discussing our GSEs, the issue we are dealing with in evaluating contingency taxpayer risk, and the issue that we are dealing with on the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities and Government Sponsored Enterprises is changing the structure of the regulator. So if we are to try to pump a 50 percent increase into this current regulator, into OFHEO, it is putting the cart in front of the horse. What we need to do is pass good authorizing legislation that provides for a strong regulator to catch up with the fact that the GSEs are growing extremely strongly. I believe the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) are really hitting the nail on the head. They are correct in saying that we have to have a strong regulator over the GSEs. All I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that we ought to do so after we have proper authorizing legislation. We ought to do so after we have authorized through the Committee on Banking and Financial Services a proper regulator to do its true job of ensuring taxpayer safety and soundness with respect to these GSEs. So to give a 50 percent increase to this overseer, to OFHEO, before enacting proper oversight legislation, authorizing legislation, would be a mistake. That is why I think a 15 percent increase is more than enough. Let us pass good authorizing legislation. I urge Members to reject this amendment.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that our veterans population is aging. In fact, in 2010--over half of the veterans population will be over the age of 62. Currently, 36 percent of all veterans are over the age of 65 and that number is expected to increase exponentially over the next eight years. The increasing age of most veterans means additional demands for medical services for eligible veterans. This surge of older veterans will undoubtedly put a strain on our nation's Veterans Health Services. The House and Senate approved $90 million in funding for the State Extended Care Facilities Construction Grant Program for FY99 and FY00. This year, however, the Committee has funded the program at $60 million--$30 million below last year's funding. This amendment would increase funding for these States Care Facilities by $30 million to the fiscal year 2000 level of $90 million. Last year, 354 Members of Congress voted to support our aging veteran population by voting for a similar amendment to restore funding the State Nursing Homes Construction Grant Program in the VA-HUD Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Once again, this amendment must be offered to prevent a massive, 33 percent cut in funding to this vital, cost-effect program for our veterans. The Veterans Millennium Health Care Act, passed by the House and signed into law in 1999, places new requirements on state care facilities that must be funded immediately. With the ranks of those requiring VA care growing on a yearly basis, states already face huge financial burdens in helping to care for our veterans. In fiscal year 1998, the VA spent on average $255.25 per day to care for long term nursing care residents, while, state veterans homes on average spent $40.00 per resident. This economic trend continued in 1999--proving that state care facilities are in fact cost-effective. Mr. Chairman, taking care of our nation's veterans is clearly one of the government's prime responsibilities Congress has a track record of supporting veterans program as we have increased the President's request for VA funding for several consecutive years now. At the current pace of construction, we will not have the necessary facilities to meet veterans' extended care needs. The State Nursing Homes Construction Grant Program is an important program that meets our veterans health care meets. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for all his hard work. He and I have worked on this issue quite a bit in the last Congress, and the gentleman has worked on this in prior Congresses. Let us clear this issue up and bring it out of the process and the mechanistic talk. What we are talking about here is stopping the raid on social security, stopping the raid on Medicare, and equipping Congress with the tools to do that. Does this bill go all the way and save social security and Medicare? No. We are not suggesting it does. As a member of the Committee on the Budget, as a new Member of Congress, I dedicated my time this year to trying to change the culture in Washington. For the last 30 years there has been a culture in Washington which has basically said this: If we are going to pay our FICA taxes off of our paycheck for social security and Medicare, Washington does not care if we pay it for social security and Medicare, because Washington is going to take it and spend it on other government programs that have nothing to do with social security and Medicare. We need to stop those days, Mr. Speaker. We need to stop the days of raiding social security, of taking money from Medicare and social security and spending it on programs that have nothing to do with it. What this bill does is fix the rules in Congress so we do not consider that kind of legislation. We have a point of order saying we are not going to consider legislation if it attempts to raid social security and Medicare. We are going to make sure that when we analyze our budgets, when we total up the numbers of the Federal Government's budget, we are not counting the social security and Medicare trust fund against our deficits or against our debts. We are saying, honest accounting, stop the raid on the program. I have a bill which has some of these provisions in it which stops the raid on the social security program indefatigably, stops it by law. This bill changes the culture in Congress, a culture that has occurred here for 30 years where people would vote for legislation that would raid social security. The President gave us a budget 2 years ago that took 38 percent of social security out of social security and spent it on other government programs. We are saying no to that. This Congress, this Committee on the Budget, last year stopped the raid on social security for the first time in 30 years. We are following up on that promise. We are following up on that policy by saying that we are changing the culture in Washington. We are changing the rules in Congress so when we do legislation here from now on, we are not going back to those old days of raiding social security and raiding Medicare. If we pay our FICA taxes off of our paycheck, that money will go to social security and will go to Medicare, period, end of story.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I think one can clearly contest the point whether coal is going to be the fuel of choice or not. I think natural gas has a good case for it. I think that around the country, according to the Department of Energy itself, natural gas usage will increase 44 percent between the year 2000 and 2020, with electricity utilities expecting to represent 60 percent of this total increase. So it comes down to a philosophy. I do not think the Federal Government should be doing this.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and I clearly respect the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the leadership he has given on this issue and many others, I simply think it comes down to the point where we have the mechanism in place under the 1990 Clean Air Act to reduce emissions. Emission trading is a market-based initiative that is actually serving this public good, without having to obligate taxpayer money, without having to have the Department of Energy pick this company to give money to over that company to give money to, thereby engaging in industrial policy. I think that there can be merits pointed out, but the point is the demand is losing, many of these projects are inefficiently managed, the GAO report is consistently telling us these things are not well managed.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, there is nothing new being developed under the Clean Coal Technology Program except for new ways to squander taxpayers' money. The clean coal program idles environmental innovation. It duplicates initiatives already under the 1990 Clean Air Act. It has been consistently found time and time again, GAO report after GAO report, to manage inefficiently. Mr. Chairman, the demand for clean coal is also falling in the energy market place. The Clean Coal Technology Program under the Department of Labor has spent nearly $2.5 billion since 1986 in grants to help private industry develop commercial technologies to burn coal in less polluting ways. What that essentially means is that we have given $2.5 billion already to private companies for commercial technologies to make a profit on it to sell it. In other words, it is industrial policy. We are picking winners and losers in the marketplace with Federal subsidies, subsidizing the research and development end of their budget, thereby engaging in what many people call corporate welfare. Mr. Chairman, this is also a very redundant program. We already have an innovative system for cleaning up our air in the 1990 version of the Clean Air Act. We have emissions trading. Which is a situation in which private companies already have an incentive to reduce pollution through emissions trading under this act. This program is, plain and simple, a boondoggle. In the last 3 years, Congress has rescinded $400 million in funding as the clean coal technology projects have proven that they cannot be completed in a timely and efficient manner, if completed at all. In the most recent GAO report, released this March of the year 2000, the GAO found that problems identified in the mid-1990s found that a number of clean coal demonstration projects have experienced difficulties meeting costs, schedule, and performance goals. As the 2000 report finds, these problems continue today and have become worse. Two of the eight projects studied out of the 13 are in bankruptcy. Eight more are heading to bankruptcy. This program is wasting taxpayers' money, they do not work, they are not on schedule, it is industrial policy, it is corporate welfare, it is antienvironmental, it duplicates the Clean Air Act, and, more importantly, according to the Congressional Research Service, conventional wisdom within the electricity industry based on current trends is that generating technology and fuel costs, that the technology of choice for new construction will be natural gas-fired plants. This is a thing of the past. Why we should continue to subsidize these corporate budgets is beyond me. I urge passage of this amendment.