Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Are you talking about the pay-go amendment?

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will be very brief in the summary of this amendment. This amendment has been here before. In fact, 321 Members of this body have at one time or another in this or past Congresses either cosponsored or voted for this amendment; 42 Members of the Committee on Appropriations today have either voted for or cosponsored this amendment. This amendment is commonly referred to as the discretionary lockbox. It simply says this. If you are a Member of Congress and you come to the floor of Congress with an amendment to reduce or cut spending, that money will go toward debt reduction. What it says is that money will go toward debt reduction unless you choose to designate that money to go toward other parts of spending. But today under current law, we have this crazy budget system under which if you go to the floor of Congress, pass an amendment to cut or eliminate spending, save some taxpayer dollars, that program may not be authorized or appropriated but the money you save by law will have to be respent at another part of the Federal Government. That is part of the crazy budget laws we live under today. Simply put, this amendment says if you want to pass an amendment to cut out some pork barrel spending, to cut some wasteful spending, that money will go toward paying down the national debt rather than being plowed into spending in another form of the Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, first of all, that would be something that would be operated under a conference report agreement. If one side does one policy and the other does not, that could be changed in conference. As to the issue of the allocation, not the appropriation of a particular program, the allocation would be changed after the conference report is passed.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very straightforward amendment. All this amendment does is it simply says that if you are a Member of Congress and you want to reduce spending, you want to go after a wasteful program, that means you can then use that money to pay off national debt. We have some weird laws in this body. I am a new Member of Congress and I am becoming acquainted with these. But one of the weirdest laws that we have here in this body is that if you eliminate or reduce spending in the appropriations process, that money is spent somewhere else in the Federal Government. It cannot go toward paying down our National debt. All this amendment does, an amendment supported by the National Taxpayers Union, an amendment supported by the Citizens Against Government Waste, all this amendment says is that if you successfully pass an amendment to save money, that that money will go toward paying down the National debt, unless you designate it to go to another account or another spending program within the Federal Government. It is good fiscal discipline, it is bipartisan. I am pleased to have as my cosponsors the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). I am pleased that 321 Members of this House have already voted for or cosponsored this bill. I ask Members to be consistent. I ask Members to vote for this amendment.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, we cannot control what happens in a conference report. We cannot control from this Chamber or from the other Chamber what they do in conference reports. So this amendment does not try to control that, it simply tries to capture the savings from successful appropriations amendments to be used for debt reduction. You cannot control the level.

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

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a very simple amendment. For those Members who are endorsing pay-go as it is currently structured, it is expiring next year, anyway. We should be supporting this amendment. This amendment not only retains pay-go but it improves and extends pay-go to apply to the fact that we now have budget surpluses. Mr. Chairman, those who are opposing this amendment are trying to make it more complicated than it is. All we are saying is in the land of budget surpluses, non-Social Security surpluses, when Washington gets flooded with all of this new money, that money should not go toward more frivolous spending. That money should go toward entitlement reform and tax reform or debt reduction. Congress will decide the mixture of those things. It extends and updates pay-go to take into account the fact that we have a surplus era. I urge the passage of this amendment.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say just one thing. That is why we have a discretionary budget. We have a discretionary budget which increases every year for veterans programs, for NIH spending. This money goes toward either tax reform or entitlement reform. Medicare is a very, very important program for every single American in this country over the age of 65. We are simply saying, let us fix Medicare, let us fix our entitlements and let us fix the fact that we have the highest tax burden in the peacetime history of this Nation. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, right now if we cut taxes and we pass a tax bill saying it decreases capital gains taxes that is offset with spending cuts or mandatory spending cuts, what this amendment simply says is that the mixture of offsets would be on-budget surpluses or mandatory offsets, and that mixture would be determined by the annual re-estimate of the projection on an annual basis. So that, if they lock in place a capital gains tax cut, say, for 10 years, their on-budget portion which pays for that would adjust on the actual re-estimate every year and any money that comes in above and beyond the surplus projection amount that is required to offset taxes would be dedicated toward offsets coming from mandatory spending.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, to respond, I appreciate the compliments of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). I, too, believe that he is one of the more thoughtful members of the Committee on the Budget who understands these issues. I would like to address just a couple of points he makes. I think it is a valid point to suggest that we are locking in projections on this pay-go scorecard fix and that that might, indeed, become a case where those projections do not materialize. That is why, if we look at the amendment, we have rewritten this amendment so that it takes into account changes in budget projections. Every January, CBO would reanalyze the projections. So every single year we would redo the projections so that the scorecard would be adjusted on an annual basis so that we would not wind ourselves up into the point where we are going to pass a tax cut, say, for example, that uses a credit on the scorecard on old projections. It would be annual projections. And if we would exceed those projections, we would offset that spending.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. The reason why I am proposing this amendment is because our current budget process, our current budget laws, have failed to take into consideration that we are now in an era of surpluses. The budget laws were written in a time when we were knee deep in deficits and we had deficits as far as the eye could see. I believe that it is very important that, as we redo our budget process, we do it to take into consideration the fact that we now have budget surpluses. What my amendment would do is to carry out our commitment to allow that the on-budget or non-Social Security surpluses would be used for tax relief or entitlement reform or debt reduction, as current law allows. Under current law, the budget surplus cannot be used to offset tax relief provisions or increases in mandatory spending. This law, which is commonly referred to as pay-as-you-go, or the pay-go statute, was enacted in 1990. It says that the sum of all tax-and-entitlement legislation could not increase the deficit in any given fiscal year over a period 5 years. This means that if a tax or spending legislation increased the deficit, it had to be offset with increasing taxes or decreasing entitlement spending, a wise law, for a deficit period. But what happens when we run into a budget surplus? Mr. Chairman, that is what this amendment addresses. This law updates that. This legislation has been introduced by Members of both sides of the aisle in this Congress and last Congress. I introduced H.R. 1016 to do just this, which is similar to this amendment. My amendment would simply apply the on-budget surplus to the pay-go scorecard to allow that the surplus could be used for either offsetting tax relief or entitlement reform. If they want to pass a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, now, under my amendment, if it becomes law, they can do so. If they want to give deductibility for health insurance, if they want to abolish the marriage tax penalty, right now they cannot use that budget surplus. Under my amendment, they can do so. What we simply achieve in this amendment is catching up with the fact that we have surpluses. If we do not rewrite the pay-go statute to catch up with the current situation, we will spend this money. Mr. Chairman, what we have seen time and time again this year and last, if there is money left on the table by our constituents overpaying their income taxes, that money will be spent. Make no bones about that. What this amendment does is play off of the good support and the good policy we have achieved by dedicating all Social Security surpluses toward paying off our public debt. Mr. Chairman, let me add that, with the passage of our budget resolution, with legislation we have passed earlier, and with the discipline of Congress last year, we stopped the raid on the Social Security trust fund and we are well on our way to paying off our public debt in 12 years. What this amendment does is address those other surpluses, the non- Social Security surpluses, the on-budget surpluses. And it simply says, after paying that public debt off, after taking Social Security off budget, if constituents, if the American taxpayer still overpays their taxes, that money ought to be used for either changing entitlements like Medicare reform or reducing their taxes. Because, after all, that is what surpluses are, tax overpayments. It is a very common sense bill. It is a very common sense amendment. It is endorsed and promoted by the National Taxpayer Union and Citizens Against Government Waste. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today I honor a dedicated public servant and an accomplished law enforcement official. After 36 years of unwavering service to the city of Racine, WI, Police Chief Richard Polzin will retire on May 13, 2000. Chief Polzin joined the Racine Police Department in 1964 and served in numerous capacities and was continually promoted to elevated positions until he was chosen in 1992 to head the entire department. Chief Polzin has presided over much change in the department during his tenure. His focus on community policing and outreach is largely credited with the dramatic decreases in crime rates in Racine. He is a man that has earned great respect from those who have served with him and from the residents of Racine for whom he has dedicated his life. On a personal note, Chief Polzin has served as a valuable resource for me in representing the people of the first district. Throughout his career he has had an open door policy and has participated in public events to further his involvement with those he has served. He has done so not for glory or praise, but rather to better serve as an effective and appreciated officer of the law. Chief Polzin has maintained a unique personal sense of decency and common sense that has carried over to his professional career. It is with great sadness that the community bids him farewell. I wish Chief Polzin and his family the best of success in the future and thank him for his 36 years of dedicated service.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I am a new Member of Congress, but I was not born yesterday, and I hear this rhetoric come to the floor of Congress every time we bring these budgets together. You hear the other side of the aisle castigate each other, as if the world is going to end tomorrow. You hear these inflammatory accusations of what is actually happening. Mr. Speaker, I would like just to point to the facts. I would like to go over what is actually included in this budget, rather than inflammatory remarks about political posturing. A budget outlines the priorities of a country. A budget outlines the priorities of Congress. That is what we are achieving in this budget, so it is more than just numbers. What we are achieving in this budget is really truly historic. This budget, for the first time in 30 years, is stopping the raid on the Social Security trust fund. Imagine that. In 1969, they passed a bill back then which gave the government the ability to dip into the Social Security trust fund, take the money out, both Republicans and Democrats did it, and then spend it on other government programs that have nothing to do with Social Security. We are putting an end to that. This budget is doing that. This budget is also strengthening Medicare. It is reserving $40 billion to create a prescription drug plan for seniors beginning next year, not in the year 2003 as the President has been proposing. This budget retires the entire national public debt by the year 2013. It pays off our public debt by the year 2013. It supports education and science. It promotes tax fairness for families, for working families and for seniors, and it does restore our vital national defenses and the quality of life for our military personnel. What I would like to guide you to is the Social Security part, because this is something that is very important to me. I am a younger Member of Congress, and I fundamentally believe that it is our obligation in this body to make Social Security a program that is not just solvent for this generation, but for the generation after that, which is the baby boomers, and the generation after that. So we have got to act now to prepare for the problems we have coming in Social Security. Last year the President came to Congress in the State of the Union address and he said, ``Let's dedicate 62 percent of the Social Security surplus back to Social Security and take 38 percent out of Social Security to the government programs.'' He said he would take 38 percent out of Social Security to spend it on the government programs. That is the budget last year that the President brought to Congress. That was the culture in Washington, that was the way things were done. We countered with a different proposal last year. 100 percent of the Social Security surplus should go to Social Security, and, by golly, we actually accomplished that. Last year, for the first time since 1969, we stopped taking money out of Social Security. This budget stops the raid on Social Security, not just for now, but forever, so we can pay off the debt and preserve Social Security for future generations.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak in support of H.R. 1070, the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act. I believe this bill, which provides coverage for low-income women who have been diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer, provides a logical expansion of early detection efforts throughout the nation. The federal government, through the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, currently provides screening for early detection of breast and cervical cancer. This bill would provide the next step by giving states the option of receiving an enhanced match through Medicaid if they choose to offer treatment services for women who have been diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer during the screening process. As a member of the House Budget Committee, I offered an amendment, which was accepted, to provide funding for these services in the Medicaid program. Now that this funding has been set aside, it is time to bring H.R. 1070 to the floor. The principles of this bill have been agreed to in the budget, and it is now time to bring the actual bill to the floor for a vote. I urge the House to consider this bill before Mother's Day as a statement of our sincere commitment to the millions of women in this country who suffer from these diseases.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today I honor a true civic hero from Wisconsin's First Congressional District--Mr. Dan Misner. Dan Misner retired last month after dedicating 40 years of his life to public education in Walworth, Wisconsin. Dan Misner grew up near Beloit, Wisconsin. He credits a dedicated high school teacher for giving him the inspiration to go to college and enter the field of education. He was the first of seven children in his family to attend college and earn a degree. Dan's teaching career started in 1959 at Big Foot High School, where he also coached the men's football, baseball and golf teams. Within ten years, he ascended to the position of Director of Instruction for the Big Foot Area Schools Association. In addition, he also served as the principal of Fontana High School. He concluded his four decades in public education by serving two terms on the Big Foot School Board, including one term as president of the board. When asked what motivated his interest in education, Dan replied that it was his passion for knowledge and children. Dan's commitment to children and education serves as an inspiration to us all. He is truly a role model for anyone seeking a career in teaching. I am honored to recognize him for his contributions in improving the lives and education of children in Wisconsin's First Congressional District. In his retirement, Dan plans to continue his volunteer work and spend more time with his family. I wish Dan Misner and his family the best of success and thank him for his dedicated service to his community.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first discuss what this motion to instruct actually does. The motion to instruct right now talks about having a prescription drug plan immediately, but I find it interesting to note that the minority side, when advancing prescription drug legislation in the Committee on the Budget, was proposing a prescription drug plan very similar to the President's plan which did not begin until the year 2003. More importantly, it dedicated a little over $34 billion to enacting prescription drug legislation when the Committee on the Budget, the majority's plan, dedicates $40 billion for prescription drugs beginning immediately. Let us go back and remember that the minority side was proposing a prescription drug plan dedicating less resources starting in 2 years versus the Republican plan, which dedicated $40 billion starting immediately. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about some of the benefits of this budget plan. For 30 years, for 30 years this institution, Washington, D.C., has been raiding the social security trust fund. People have been paying their FICA taxes, it has been going into social security, and people in Washington have been taking that money and spending it on other totally unrelated items. This budget seals that trust fund. This budget says, not a penny of money should come out of social security. Instead, we are going to pay off the debt and fix the problems we have with social security. That is what we are trying to do here. So what happened last year when the President brought his budget here on the House floor in the State of the Union Address? He called for dedicating 62 percent to the social security surplus, and 38 percent of social security would go to finance other government programs. Last year we said, that is enough. We should dedicate 100 percent of the social security surplus to social security. That is in fact what we have achieved. If we take a look at what we have done over the last 2 years with this Congress, we have paid back so much debt that we have actually stopped the raid on the social security trust fund beginning last year. This budget completes that. This budget says no longer will we go back to the days of red, no longer will we go back to the days of taking money out of the social security trust fund to spend on other programs that have nothing to do with social security. Instead, we are going to pay off our national public debt, we are going to put money back into social security, and we are not going to let politicians dip into the social security trust fund. Last year when the President brought his budget to the floor, he wanted 62 percent in social security and 38 percent out of it. He called for creating 84 new government programs, 84 new government programs in this year's budget, and significantly increasing 160 other government programs, for a grand total of 244 new programs and higher spending on new programs in Washington coming from the social security trust fund. Mr. Speaker, we have actually achieved a historic goal here. We have stopped the raid on the social security trust fund. Let us build on that success. Let us continue to do that. Let us pass the Republican budget and say no to the motion to instruct.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I just have to take issue with the comments that have been preceding this debate. This is not a political issue. This is a human issue. Let me just say this to all of my colleagues who are about to vote on this issue. On the motion to recommit, the health exception is a loophole wide enough to drive a Mack truck through it. The health exception would render this ban virtually meaningless. Let us just go over what this procedure does. The abortionist forcibly turns the child into the breech, feet first in that position, then the abortionist pulls the living child out of the mother by the leg until only the head is left inside, stabs the child at the base of the skull and sucks out the brain with a vacuum, pulling the now dead child out of the mother. Mr. Speaker, C. Everett Koop, hundreds of OB-GYNs have told us that this is not medically necessary. In the words of the former Surgeon General himself, from the evidence that has been presented in standard OB-GYN textbooks as well as in the annals of research in OB-GYN, there is no medical necessity for this abortion procedure.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my congratulations to the University of Wisconsin's men's basketball team on their first Final Four appearance in 59 years. The Badgers got to the Final Four by winning the Western Regional in the NCAA Tournament over the past 2 weeks. Led by head coach Dick Bennett, the Badgers pulled off three upsets in a row to make it to the Final Four. The Badgers' style of play proves that defense wins basketball games. Wisconsin may not be known for having the best athletes in the tournament, but they advanced with a patient and disciplined offense, a tenacious man-to-man defense, and a great deal of heart and perseverance. The Wisconsin Badgers have exceeded many people's expectations in getting to the Final Four this year. In fact, along with the North Carolina Tar Heels, they are the lowest seed to reach the Final Four since 1986. Wisconsin's tournament wins can be credited in part to the defensive pressure of Mike Kelley, the three-point sharp shooting of Jon Bryant, and the great front court offensive play of Andy Kowske. Wisconsin faces a tough assignment on Saturday when we go up against the Michigan State Spartans. I wish the Wisconsin Badgers the best of luck in Indianapolis this weekend in their quest to bring Wisconsin its first championship since 1941.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, to respond to the gentleman's question, in his chart he says in the first year that we have zero tax cuts. If we take a look at page 29 of the bill, we actually have $5 billion in tax cuts. So looking at the legislation that we are here voting on right now, the chart that the gentleman has prepared is actually in error by $5 billion in the first year alone.