Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I know the gentleman is a physician. Could the gentleman just explain what kind of things we are funding with this kind of basic research? What kinds of diseases are we attempting to cure? What kinds of institutions is this money going toward?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, did the gentleman just say that the Republican Congress has actually put more of a commitment toward basic health research than the President's administration has?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, that is right; $28 billion over the next 3 years and then zero after that. What our budget does is spend $40 billion of hard cash, $40 billion over the next 5 years, for prescription drugs for Medicare and for reforms for the Medicare system itself.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, if we look at the President's budget, he is saying let us spend $28 billion in Medicare for prescription drugs, but that is only over 2 years. In the year 2003, in the year 2004 and in the year 2005, he spends zero money on Medicare.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to express my shock and disappointment at the tenor and content of the Special Order that was coordinated by the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Census last night. But before I go on please please everyone in America fill out your census forms and mail them in. For months now Republicans and Democrats have been promoting the census. No political cheap shots, no debates over sampling. But after the Democrats ambush last night, it's time to take the gloves off. As we all know, this is the most critical time for the census and for making sure that everyone participates. But the Democrats have obviously decided that promoting the census is secondary to promoting their own political agenda. Are the Democrats so scared of George Bush that they would inject politics into the census, the very week people are filling out their forms and mailing them in? Sadly the answer can only be yes. Are the Democrats so afraid that we will retain the House in the upcoming election that they would risk alienating people from participating in the census? Once again, the sad answer is yes. While it is no secret that our parties and the presidential candidates differ on the use of estimated numbers for purposes of adjustment, the fact that you could not simply promote the census during this most crucial of weeks is very disappointing. Democrats have stated all along that they want everyone to fill out their forms to assist the Bureau in getting the best count ever. I now wonder whether this was merely a ruse you maintained to harbor another objective. The Democrat message on Wednesday to the American people was ``Don't worry about filling out your form--let the government estimate where you are.'' The effect of these statements is to undermine a good mail-back response rate. There is a very good chance that statistical sampling will be found illegal for redistricting as it was found illegal by the Supreme Court for reapportionment. Supporters of sampling are selling people a false bill of goods. Let's face reality for a moment--the Supreme Court ruled last January that sampling cannot be used for apportionment and that the Census Bureau must conduct a full enumeration. Therefore your attack on Presidential candidate George Bush is ludicrous. And as we both know, the National Academy of Sciences has yet to endorse the complex ACE estimation plan. In fact, at last month's NAS meeting there was much debate on both sides of the issue and it was clear that there was uncertainty. To suggest that the NAS has endorsed the specifics of ACE is to mislead the American people. In conclusion, I think that those that participated in last night's ambush on Republicans have done far more to hurt the census efforts than you all may believe. Many Americans are concerned about the intrusiveness of the long form. Even the Bureau acknowledges that many of their phone calls and emails are complaints. All offices are fielding numerous calls from upset constituents. In fact, you could not have picked a worse day in a worse week to make your purely partisan political diatribe. Last night, on the House floor, you had an opportunity to do one of two things: Promote the census and the importance of mailing back the forms, or use the opportunity for political grandstanding. Unfortunately, you chose the latter. To insert the debate over sampling and to take cheap shots at Governor Bush will not motivate one single person to fill out their census form and mail it in. I can only hope that American people can see through your partisan motives and rhetoric and realize that the answer to their needs will not be met by a statistical silver bullet and that despite your obvious attempts to dissuade them, will fill out their census forms.

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 ther national currency the incentive to do so. When a foreign country grants the U.S. dollar legal tender in replace of its own currency, that country dollarizes. This bill would serve to encourage such dollarization. Up to this point, the United States has been missing one of the best opportunities to correct chaotic currency markets, especially in the Western Hemisphere. Sound currency policies, such as dollarization, that focus on exchange rate stabilization would put an end to the debilitating and periodic collapse of developing countries caused by haphazard devaluation. Congressional leadership in exchange rate policies would protect our own economy. Every 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. Today, several countries are already considering dollarization. They realize that by either linking with the U.S. dollar, legalizing competing foreign currencies, or scrapping their currency altogether and replacing it with the dollar, they will encourage long-term economic stability through lower interest rates, stable exchange rates and increased investment. Official dollarization, such as is encouraged by this bill, is not a new idea. In fact, it is becoming an increasingly popular answer to currency stabilization in emerging markets. Argentina is seriously considering such a currency reform. Mexico, Ecuador, and El Salvador have also considered dollarization. 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 percent of the resulting increase in U.S. seigniorage earnings. Part of the remaining 15 percent would be distributed to countries like Panama that have already dollarized, but the majority of the 15 percent would be deposited at the Treasury Department as government revenue. Additionally, this bill would make it 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 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. Speaker, I would like to speak out in opposition to not only this rule but to this final bill for many reasons, but chief among those reasons why I am opposing this rule and why I am opposing this bill is because of the dairy policy provisions contained within this bill. Blame can be spread all over the place. The President did not adequately protect his own agency's reform. The majority of Congress swept against us. The point is this: we are preserving a 62-year-old antiquated program that pays a farmer more for the price of milk he produces the farther away from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, he lives. This Congress, which is elected to defend the Constitution, freedom, this Congress which contains most Members of Congress who proclaim to be in favor of free market principles, are voting in this bill to destroy those very free market principles. What I say to those Members of Congress from the Northeast, from the South, you like milking cows, I understand that, ``Just don't milk our dairy farmers in the upper Midwest.'' The problem with this bill is that half of this dairy policy never came to this body. It did come to the Senate and it was defeated. So why on earth are we dealing with this legislation in this big appropriations bill? This should be done through regular order. It should not be done in this appropriations bill. Worst of all, it pits one, two, three regions of dairy farmers against one region, the upper Midwest. We simply want a chance to compete fairly on a level playing field in the upper Midwest, and we are being deprived of that because of this legislation that is being tacked onto this bill like a giant, ugly ornament on a big Christmas tree. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of this body to vote against this bill.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for yielding 1 minute to me. The previous speaker said there should be no reason to vote against this bill. I will give my colleagues one darn good reason why we should not vote for this bill, because this bill contains within it anti-dairy provisions which go right to the bottom line of the dairy farmers in the upper Midwest. I really do applaud this Medicare provision. I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, for including very important Medicare language which helps southern Wisconsin Medicare beneficiaries. But what this legislation includes is legislation that has not even passed through the House of Representatives or through the United States Senate which goes right to the bottom line of the dairy farmers in the upper Midwest. Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues, let us bring this legislation down the pike on regular order, not tack it on this ugly Christmas tree as a big ugly ornament. This legislation is not fair for our dairy farmers. This legislation takes them and puts them at a competitive disadvantage against all other farmers in the country. And it revokes the free market principles that we were elected to protect.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, it is very fitting that I think this follows up after the tribute to George Brown, who was a veteran here for our country, because Thursday is Veterans Day. And Veterans Day is a day to honor great sacrifices, celebrate heroic victories, and it serves as a reminder that the daily freedoms many of us too often take for granted came at a very painful price. It is a day of national respect and reflection that serves as an annual remind that we can never forget those who have allowed us to enjoy that which we have today. More than ever, we must rededicate ourselves to honor the lives and memories of those who served, fought, and too often died. Quote: With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations. Mr. Speaker, these words were taken from President Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address and sadly read again just two months later over this author's grave. The excerpt ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan,'' are now etched in stone on the plaque of the Veterans Administration Building in Washington, D.C., reminding us of the debt we owe to those who have defended our Nation in times of both war and peace. From the smallest Wisconsin communities to the largest cities throughout our Nation, we have been blessed by those individuals who set aside their own aspirations to serve their country in defense of freedom and liberty. Our duty is not only to ensure that parades take place, that heartfelt words of thanks are offered, nor is it only to fly our Nation's flag in honor of their service. It is more. It is our duty to care for the soldier and his dependents who continue to bear the effects of battle. In our history, more than one million American men and women have died in defense of our Nation. It is staggering. If these now silent patriots have taught us anything, it is that, because of the men and women who are willing to sacrifice their last blood and breath, the United States remains a symbol of freedom in a country whose ideas are still worth defending. Our veterans are the national heroes who define our American heritage. Yet, in the spirit of our great Nation, they are unassuming heroes. They did not seek glory or praise. Their deeds will never be chronicled sufficient to their service. In large part, they were not people discontinued for military careers or tested in battle. They have largely been ordinary men and women who have accomplished extraordinary deeds. We should ever be thankful that, for over 200 years, individuals of each generation, many from my own family, had been willing to put on uniforms and answer the call of their country, that they had been willing to risk their all to allow their children and grandchildren the opportunity to live in peace. I would like to take this opportunity to single out just a few of the thousands of veterans I am so fortunate enough to represent. Veterans and other civic organizations in the district I represent, the First District of Wisconsin, recently nominated some of their members to be recognized and I am proud to also recognize their contributions here today on the floor of the House of Representatives. Today, among the thousands I would like to recognize, are these men: Frank Onti of Walworth, from the U.S. Navy; John Cameron of Mukwonago, from the U.S. Army; James Schmidt of Burlington, from the U.S. Navy; Dale Roenneberg of Brodhead, from the U.S. Army; Franklyn Condon of Brodhead, from the U.S. Army; Jack Frawley of Whitewater, from the U.S. Marine Corps; Edward DeGroot of Racine, from the U.S. Army; John Kreidler of East Troy, from the U.S. Army; Raymond Lewis, Jr., of Racine, from the U.S. Army; Robert Engstrom of Janesville, from the U.S. Army; Everett Shumway of Edgerton, from the U.S. Navy; Dan Ponder of Elkhorn, from the U.S. Army; Warren Welkos of Elkhorn, from the U.S. Marine Corps; John Tueting of Elkhorn, from the U.S. Marine Corps; Mario Maritato, a great guy, I know Mario very well, really a true hero in southern Wisconsin, of Somers, from the U.S. Marine Corps; Robert Flint of Kenosha, from the Marine Corps; Ted Dvorak, another great guy, of Kenosha, from the U.S. Navy; Cloren Meade of Beloit, from the U.S. Army Air Corps; and Arthur Gibbs of Beloit, from the U.S. Army. How might we best recognize these American heroes, these who came from southern Wisconsin? We should pause to give them thanks for safeguarding our liberties. We should pledge to carry out the civic responsibilities of citizens living in a free country. And we should exercise those loyalties by demonstrating our respect for both our living veterans and those in their final resting places. Mr. Speaker, it is so little to ask of us when they have given so much.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Balanced Budget Refinement Act, H.R. 3075. This bill is vital to the successful continuation of Medicare as we know it. This bill restores some of the changes that were made to the Medicare program back in 1997 under the Balanced Budget Act. In the district that I serve, two Medicare+Choice providers announced that they would terminate services for seniors. The beneficiaries were understandably devastated. I held a town hall meeting on this subject with the beneficiaries, with the Medicare+Choice providers, and with the government. The response was overwhelming. s Some of the beneficiaries decided that they were not going to lose without a fight. Joyce Scantling of Racine, Wisconsin, has worked tirelessly on this issue. Together with 50 or 60 seniors and beneficiaries, they have rallied support around Medicare legislation to fix these reimbursement rates. I hold in my hand right here thousands of signatures from Wisconsin's seniors and Medicare beneficiaries urging Congress to pass Medicare legislation to fix these reimbursement rates.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill is vital to the successful continuation of Medicare as we know it. This bill restores some of the changes that were made to the Medicare program back in 1997 in the Balanced Budget Act. In the district I serve, several Medicare+Choice providers announced that they would terminate services for seniors. The beneficiaries were understandably devastated. I held a town hall meeting in August of this year to bring together the health plans, HCFA and Medicare beneficiaries. The response was overwhelming. Some of the beneficiaries decided they were not going to lose their managed care coverage without a fight. Joyce Scantling, of Racine, WI has been leading this fight and has worked tirelessly with 50 or 60 other beneficiaries to rally their support around Medicare legislation to fix the reimbursement rates. I hold in my hand thousands of signatures of Wisconsin seniors who have contacted me in support of providing a fix to Medicare and in support of protecting their choices under Medicare. This bill restores funding for Medicare+Choice providers, as well as hospitals, home health care providers, and skilled nursing facilities. It protects the benefits of Medicare beneficiaries like Joyce Scantling into the future. Mr. Speaker, I believe the current situation with Medicare in this country is unacceptable. Wisconsin and other rural states do not receive the same reimbursements as the rest of the country; as a result of this disparity, seniors in these areas are not entitled to the same services as seniors in places like Florida or Texas. Some of these areas do not even have a Medicare+Choice option because they cannot make it work with the low reimbursement rates that are offered in those areas. Seniors in my state should not be entitled to a lower level of service than seniors in other parts of the country. My ultimate goal is to equalize reimbursement rates nationwide to ensure that all seniors, regardless of where they live, would be entitled to a choice in Medicare, a choice that would give them the services they are entitled to. However, in the meantime, I believe this legislation provides the next best alternative because it targets resources where they are needed, such as my home state of Wisconsin. To this end, I applaud passage of this legislation because I believe it will bring Wisconsin closer to receiving fair and equitable reimbursements for medical services; this cause is not yet complete, however it is a step in the right direction. I will continue to fight to ensure fair medical coverage for seniors in all parts of this country.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of my constituents, Charlie Waller. As we near Veterans Day, I feel it is appropriate to point out the achievements of one of our fine servicemen--achievements made while dealing with a unique disability. You see, Charlie may be the most highly decorated man to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces with the sight of only one eye. Charlie entered the U.S. Army (Air Corps) as a desk clerk. He was subsequently sent overseas first to Algeria and then to several locations in Europe. He served in the Communications Section of the 725th Squadron, 451st Bomber Group. While there, it was noted by several of the soldiers in his unit that he was an excellent soldier. He also received several awards, including 10 battle stars, 2 presidential unit citation awards, an Army good Conduct medal, An American Campaign Medal, The European-African Middle Eastern Campaign Medal, 2 Oak Leaf Clusters, & the WWII victory Medal. This information has been verified by the National Personnel Records Center. Eventually, his commanding officers realized that he was not eligible to serve in a combat unit and he was promptly sent back to the states. In 1997-98, Representative Mark Neumann assisted Charlie in having his records officially changed to reflect that he only had his limited vision of one eye prior to entering the service. Again, Charlie overcame his disability and served his country with courage and honor. It is for his dedication and achievements that I honor him today.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 560, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have noted ``yes.''

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the committee for yielding time. I just want to say it is a pleasure to serve on this committee with my fellow members, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the others as well. We do disagree on methodology from time to time on this issue but clearly in this realm we do not disagree, we all stand united for passage of this resolution and here is why. We as Members of Congress are in a very unique position to promote the census. As the prior speakers had mentioned, the census is an extraordinarily important civic demonstration which has so much consequences in each of our districts, not just on whether or not we are accurately counted for or not but on Federal funding formulas, on redistribution of certain formulas that go back to our districts. We do not want to live with inaccurate data for 10 years. But we can make a difference in our districts. That is why I ask all of my colleagues to get involved in this. In my district, we have a key person in our district office working on a census plan. I am traveling the district with another Democratic Member of the Congress the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) later on this year to do a bipartisan promotion of the decennial census. Here are some of the examples that any Member of Congress can do to promote the census in their area: As mentioned before, we can use our congressional newsletters or websites to increase awareness of the upcoming census and what it means to our communities. We can conduct or participate in town hall meetings that emphasize participation in the census. We can support local Complete Count Communities and other community-based partnerships, something that I am very much involved in back home. We can produce and air public service announcements that can be used for local TV, radio and print media outlining uses of census data, confidentiality guarantees and employment opportunities. We can conduct walking tours and census awareness day activities in hard-to-count communities. We can visit local census offices and training sites to show support for local workers and emphasize the importance of the work they will do for their communities. We can form alliances with local and tribal governments and businesses to promote the importance of the work they will do for their communities. Participate in Census in the Schools forums to encourage local educators and administrators to use the Census in the Schools materials and raise awareness in the schools. We can participate in the grand opening of local census offices. Encourage local businesses to promote the 2000 census and sponsor census activities. I know that is a mouthful, but it is very convenient, as the Census Bureau has given to each of our offices this handy little kit. It is called the Congressional Partnership Toolkit. This is available in every Member's office. I am sure my colleagues can get additional copies of this. It has very easy to use, digestible forms that we can use to put together plans in our own congressional districts to promote the census. The point is, we have a responsibility as Members of Congress to promote the census on behalf of our own constituents so that we are counted for fully in our congressional districts. There is a plan and there is a way to do this. It is a wonderful opportunity for those of us to get to know other people in our congressional districts, to get government officials working together, to get communities working together. This census is a wonderful civic demonstration. I encourage every Member of Congress, take a look at this Congressional Partnership Toolkit, made available for us from the Census Bureau, take a look at it, get your offices involved in it, work with other Members of Congress in your delegation across the aisle. This is something that we can work to improve so that everyone is counted for in the next census. It is a wonderful celebration of democracy that we have to take very seriously here. I encourage all of my colleagues to take this issue very, very seriously. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New York and the gentleman from Florida for their leadership on this issue.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 525, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been presdent, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak in favor of the Boehner amendment today. I believe that this amendment achieves the necessary balance between protection of individuals enrolled in managed care plans and keeping their care affordable and accessible for employers and their employees. The last thing we want to do is drive up the number of uninsured Americans today. Too many costly mandates and too many costly lawsuits will result in just that. I firmly believe that real patient protections are ensuring greater access to care, more affordable care, and the highest quality care. According to the Census Bureau, we have 44 million Americans who are uninsured today. The last thing we want to do is drive that number up. We want to get that number down, not up. We must approach managed care legislation in the same way we approach other mandates we have voted on. We need to consider its effect on the individuals in this country and on their ability to access quality health care. I have heard from hundreds of employers and their representatives from my district, the First District of Wisconsin, who are extremely nervous about this action that we are taking here today. They are nervous, not because they may be required to provide more benefits, that is a fine thing, but they are nervous because they may be facing a whole new array of lawsuits simply because they choose to offer health care for their employees. I urge Congress to consider those businesses and the people they employ in this debate today. Anything we do to drive up their costs to expose them to a whole new feeding frenzy of lawsuits will drive up the number of uninsured. We must strive to protect the rights of individuals in managed care, make sure that they are not wrongfully denied care, but make sure that health care remains affordable and accessible. The Boehner amendment strikes that balance. It contains strong measures to review health care decisions. It requires an internal review, external review that has teeth and enforcement measures. More importantly, we need to make sure that the relationship in health care is between patients and their doctors, not patients and the HMOs and patients and their trial lawyers.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak in favor of the Quality Care for the Uninsured Act. You are going to hear a lot of discussion later today about protecting individuals who are enrolled in health plans in this country; but we have a much bigger problem in this country. A problem that this act provides solution for--the problem of the uninsured. It is important to make sure individuals who have health care are receiving quality care, but it even more important to find a solution for the growing number of uninsured. The Census Bureau reported that currently 44 million people in this country do not have health insurance--that number has been steadily rising during this administration. We must find a way to provide a better system for them--a system that makes health care affordable and accessible. This bill does that with healthmarts, medical savings accounts, tax deductions for the self-employed and the uninsured, tax deductions for long-term care premiums, and association health plans. These provisions will help small businesses find a way to offer health insurance for their employees. I believe everyone in this country deserves quality, affordable health care. This bill provides that through tax incentives and market reform. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of the Quality Care for the Uninsured Act.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today the House considered H. Res. 181, to condemn the murder of Americans by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. These victims of the escalating violence in Colombia were from Wisconsin, and I would like to thank my colleague Mark Green for introducing this important resolution. I would also like to bring to your attention another situation in Colombia that hit close to home. This month, we are upon the one-year anniversary of the alleged assassination of Colombian citizen Maria Hoyos. Maria was a close friend of Dr. Frederick and Ronnie Wood and their family that live in the district I serve. Mr. Wood told me about Maria's October 28, 1998, assassination and questioned how the United States could let Colombia, a nation in our own backyard, fall through the cracks of our worldwide effort at helping countries grow both economically and democratically. Maria del Pilar Vallejo de Hoyos came to Kenosha, Wisconsin, for the first time over twenty years ago as an exchange student. She stayed in the Woods' home and has been like a sister to the Woods' three daughters and a general member of the family. Maria returned to Wisconsin several times over the years and kept in touch. During Maria's last trip to Kenosha, her son, Guilermo, was the ring bearer at one of the Woods' daughter's wedding. In Colombia, she had completed law school and had been elected at different times to the Manizales City Council and the Caldas State Assembly. In Colombia, President Andres Pastrana has tried unsuccessfully to negotiate peace between the Marxist rebels (the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN)). But the rebels' power and influence in Colombia has grown substantially by collaborating with Colombia's drug-traffickers and the money they provide. This is a symbiotic relationship--the Marxist rebels supply protection for the drug lords in return for the money to arm themselves against the Colombian government. Alarmingly, drug trade in Colombia amounts to between 25 and 35 percent of the country's total exports. From this bounty, the rebel guerrillas have been able to support their war against the Pastrana government. Some estimates put the FARC and ELN control over Colombian territory at 50 percent with significant influence over more than half of the country's municipalities. I am not willing to continue the Administration's policy of throwing more money at Colombia if it is not utilized properly through a well- designed anti-drug strategy. However, both the Administration and Congress have been remiss in their haphazard guidelines for certification, decertification, and national interest waivers in the anti-drug war. Since 1990, Colombia has received almost $1 billion in U.S. anti-drug aid, yet cocaine and heroin production has continued its steady increase. In fact, a June GAO report concluded that Colombia's future cocaine production could jump 50 percent. On top of no relief in sight from future drug production, the country is suffering through its worst recession since the 1930s. The economy is predicted to shrink further by 3.5% in 1999, and the central bank recently allowed the Colombian peso to float, creating instability of the peso against the U.S. dollar. The growing strength of the Marxist rebels and drug trade combined with Colombia's faltering economy and growing income inequalities is a lethal combination. I would like to thank the Speaker for the hard work he has put in to shaping U.S. policy toward Colombia. Through the efforts of Speaker Hastert and other Members, Congress has developed direct ties with the Colombian government and has eclipsed the Clinton Administration's efforts to combat the narco-democracy engulfing Colombia. I strongly support the efforts of Speaker Hastert and Government Reform Chairman Dan Burton, who feel passionately about the war on drugs and the effect it is having on the Colombian people. Both Congress and the Clinton Administration need to look more closely at the problem brewing in Colombia before it threatens Western Hemisphere stability. As I have found out through Dr. Fred Wood in Kenosha, the growing violence in Colombia has already reached my district, and I want to ensure that other upstanding Colombian citizens do not meet Maria Hoyos fate while trying to maintain a legitimate democracy in Colombia.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for all his leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I agree with a lot of what the other side of the aisle is saying. What we are trying to achieve in this resolution is essentially this: let us stop raiding Social Security. All sides can be blamed for raiding Social Security over the last 30 years. Looking at the CBO's estimate of the President's most recent budget, the President proposes raiding Social Security. If you do not take into account his tax increases, the President proposes raiding Social Security next year by $20 billion. If you pass his tax increases, he is raiding it by $7 billion. Having said that, the pressure in this place is amazing. I know I am a new Member of Congress, I am a young Member of Congress, but I am also growing tired and old with all the excuses you hear around here for raiding and spending Social Security. What we are trying to achieve with this resolution is basically this: while we are going through the waning days of our appropriations battle, while we are coming to the end of the fiscal year, let us remember what we all said in our campaigns. Let us remember the policies we produced in our budgets, and that is this: every dime of money we pay in FICA taxes for Social Security should go to Social Security, should go to paying down our debt, and should go to paying off the debt we owe to Social Security, not to be spent on other government programs. We are trying to get Congress to reaffirm that policy with this resolution today. Yes, I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), it is not binding, but it does get everybody on Record saying ``stop raiding Social Security.'' The ranking member of the Committee on the Budget suggested that the raiding is already taking place, pointing to various legislative proposals in the House and Senate that are out there. If added together, it would cause raiding of Social Security. Well, these legislative proposals have not passed yet. The tax cut was vetoed. The conference reports on the appropriations bills have not been signed into law. That is why we are trying to pass this resolution. So as these bills are put together, as these conference reports are assembled, make sure you do not raid Social Security.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I will repeat it to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) after this, Mr. Chairman. The blend formula price now takes that basic formula price, which I just mentioned plus .12 times the percent of milk used for cheese, powder, and butter plus the basic formula price, that formula I mentioned a second ago, plus .30 times the percent of milk used for ice cream and yogurt plus the formula price, the basic formula price, plus 1.04 plus .15 times the distance from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, divided by a hundred, all times the percent of milk used for fluid. That is the current milk pricing system. That is the choice my colleagues are making, to perpetuate that if they vote for H.R. 1402. If my colleagues want to scrap this 1937 abomination, Mr. Chairman, they should vote for the Boehner amendment, vote against 1402.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just point out, which we did earlier today, what this is about. This is about the status quo of the market, and I would like to go through what the status quo is because a lot of Members around here do not exactly know how the price of milk is determined. So, under the status quo, let me read how the price of milk is determined. There is the basic formula price, and there is the blended price. Here is the basic formula price: The BFP equals, basic formula price, equals last month's average price paid for manufacturing grade milk in Minnesota and Wisconsin plus current AA grade butter times 4.27 plus current nondry milk price times 8.07 minus current dry-buttermilk price times .42 plus current cheddar cheese price times 9.87 plus current grade A butter price times .238 minus last month's grade A butter price times 4.27 plus last month's nondry milk price times 8.07 plus last month's dry-buttermilk price times .42 minus last month's cheddar cheese price times 9.87 plus last month's grade A butter price times .238 plus present butterfat minus 3.5 times current month's butter price times 1.38 minus last month's price of manufacturing grade milk in Minnesota and Wisconsin, times .028. That is the basic formula price.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, that is a very, very good question. In my opinion, I think Members of Congress, who swear to uphold the Constitution, should do that as well. We should debate the constitutionality of the bill as we try to propose so we do not logjam the courts heaping the responsibility over there. We should be the first check on the Constitution here in the legislative branch of the Government.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I am going to do something that is fairly rare here on the House floor, and that is read a passage of the U.S. Constitution. Now, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) in his amendment is raising a very, very valid point. Let us go back to the Constitution. Everybody who is here in this body swore an oath to protect the Constitution. So in Article I, section 9, ``No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another. Nor shall vessels bound to or from one State be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another.'' The point is this: this is unconstitutional. We are already setting up protectionist barriers within this country based on this antiquated dairy system. Now, the question about export, world trade with other countries, is a very, very valid question. But that goes to the heart of the issue, which is, we are already doing things that seem extraordinarily contrary to the Constitution that we are here to uphold. Now, I know I am a new Member, and I know it is very novel that we bring this to the floor, but the point is this: what we are already doing is, in many people's opinion, including my own, is unconstitutional. What we are doing is violating the very principles we try to export to other countries.